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 07:45, 17 February 2015 editK7L (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,362 edits →Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 December 2024 edit undoThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Administrators156,577 edits →Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192: closing 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- 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__ {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 700K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 873 |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 Dan56 ==
{{user|Dan56}}


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 .
'''Topic ban''' requested.
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


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


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


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


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
Please see , which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further.
{{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)}}
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)
The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: 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)


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


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
: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)
{{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)}}
::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)


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 -->
*Another ] edit, which I . --] (]) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*Another ] edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again ], POV, and Wikilawyering issues:
::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 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 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)
: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.
*: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)
: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)
*::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)
: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}}
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
::I 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)
: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).
:::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)
: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===
:More tendentious editing: --] (]) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
: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)


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.
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 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)
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.
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
*{{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)
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)


== ] ==
:Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., and when . I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of ] - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute ). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion.


:In the ] that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic"). I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --] (]) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
More, under false pretexts: , . For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? ] (]) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::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.
Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): . Restored by me , with some fixes and additions on further edits. --] (]) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
=== Action needed here; proposal ===
* {{u|Dan56}} was the subject of ] in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by {{u|Beeblebrox}} with findings that Dan56 be reminded of ], ], and ].
* AN/I threads involving Dan26 '''after''' his RFC: ,


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.
This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Misplaced Pages are: '''plagiarism''', '''music reviews''', and '''music genres'''. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with ], ], and ] pursuant to these three items '''since his RFC''', and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:: You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at ] and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. ] (]) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
; Plagiarism
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I last interacted with Dan56 directly at ] where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the ], I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then , saying it was "tainted" because he . Rather than conceding that {{u|Rationalobserver}} had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of {{user|Jazzerino}}, which was later . However, Dan56 to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.
:::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)
The situation at ] demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
:: I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but {{ping|Mike V}} had, who then offered as to why that decision was overturned, NOT that it was "incorrect"--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "''evidence''" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for ] where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? ] (]) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
; Music reviews
One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on ]. {{u|Lapadite77}} provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at ]-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear ] violations post-RFC.


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 .
:: I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source ''I'' had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per ]. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, ''each'' editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and ''should'' be said about the other guy (]). The burden is on you to read through ] and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. ] (]) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::: , for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! () But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. ] (]) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
; Music genres
Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates ] (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and ] (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).


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)
:: Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre ''sourced'' in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Misplaced Pages, including the improvements I stand by at ], I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. ] (]) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
; Proposed solutions
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
We need some help here. {{u|Beeblebrox}}, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
# Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
: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.
# Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
: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)
# Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --] (]) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (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)


== ] ==
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album ''Garbage'' article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --] (]) 04:13, 10 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-->
:Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: ; ; , where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:
:::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)
:{{quote|"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Misplaced Pages doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Misplaced Pages is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."}}
*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)
:and , where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. ''Please remember it is a collaborative project'', repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --] (]) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (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 ] ==
:: Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--{{u|Harmelodix}} and ]. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. ] (]) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the , where he first professed them. On that note, again disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by {{u|Spike Wilbury}}, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (), as in the first post of this ANI thread. --] (]) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC) User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


: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.
: "Shtick"? That's cute, you used a word from the ''Newsweek'' review you've removed numerous times without explanation. And on that note, of "disruption and WP:TE of the same" from Lapadite77, who is still reverting after having been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of this insulting thread, I'd like to bring up the fact that Lapadite made while editing had grown hot and tempered between us at ]. In any case, I've opened multiple RfCs now at the article's talk page, because Lapadite is showing little civility or ] concerning the guidelines his edits are violating. ] (]) 05:51, 12 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)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
It is clear Dan56 is merely repeating ''exactly'' what I've said to him regarding his gross guideline-violating behavior and edits, on talk page and edit summaries, and projecting ''exactly'' what he's been accused of doing. Everything is on the ] and , and detailed above. Dan56 opened two more RfCs (with multiple misleading statements, unsurprisingly) and restored his WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit again, which was questioned and challenged on the talk page; one of his reverts states: "unexplained removal", which is not the case and is something one of the editors quoted above from a past ANI questions Dan56 on *. It is beyond clear, from all that has been discussed and linked, how much WP:OWN is exhibited, and how disruptive, biased, and uncollaborative Dan56 is; particularly at this band's articles. He has been called out and warned multiple times on various talk pages and ANIs before, and, looking through ANI, edit warring, and SPI archives, Dan56 appears to been been blocked multiple times in the past for disruptive behaviors, largely edit warring. It is clear he has not learned and has no plans to. Nor does he appear to have read the entire ANI thread as I pointed out more than once his lack of ASG and baseless accusation of Wikihounding, which, like I'd said. and linked, was addressed on the talk page.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> An editor's comments from a past ANI thread are relevant here again: {{quote|I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Misplaced Pages doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Misplaced Pages is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."}} --] (]) 09:37, 12 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.
: No one has questioned what Lapadite calls my "WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit" other than Lapadite himself, who has been the one accusing me of tedious or tendentious editing at Version 2.0 since the content dispute began. After I had opened the first RfC there, he canvassed other editors who had worked with him on other "Garbage-related" articles (, ). His most recent "unexplained removal" that he is referring to is expressing criticism of the article's topic from '']'' and '']'' magazine, a removal he did not explain in any way, either in an edit summary or at the talk page. I don't understand why he continues to refer to the sockpuppet case of Harmelodix, who was in fact found to make tedious ]-like edits at good/featured articles I had either created or promoted. ] (]) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
'''Regarding this thread''', it's nothing new for a disgruntled editor whose edits have been disputed to accuse those disputing his edits of disruptive editing and edit warring at an ANI thread. In fact, Lapadite's done it before, and , where he accused {{user|Homeostasis07}} of ownership and edit warring at, you guessed it, a "Garbage-related" article. Before {{user|Andrzejbanas}} invited me to a discussion at one, I had no interest in Garbage articles. I regret having the idea of improving ] because of having to interact with such fan-fueled ownership on the part of Lapadite, but all this crap he's flinging at my character and motives doesn't obligate me to bow out. ] (]) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
More projecting from Dan56, like I noted at the beginning of the ANI, throwing out accusations and (laughably) claiming things of which ''he'' is guilty. How predictable; randomly citing the two times I've posted on ANI - one seeking resolution on an article tag dispute after reverts of by two editors who were uncivil, the other, reporting an editor's edit warring on an article, as one can clearly see. On the other hand, one can see from all aforementioned part of Dan's history of being the subject of ANI and other disputes, regarding various articles and various editors, as well as his block history. Obviously Dan56 is "disgruntled" with and inconvenienced by having another ANI report on him, and the possibility of actual consequences, such as a '''topic ban''' or the aforementioned by Spike Wilbury, which then won't allow him to freely and persistently subject others to his WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:EW disruptive behavior on selected articles. See how he's continued engaging in all the aforementioned while the ANI is opened, but arguably to a less degree than before the report; I can imagine his drive after it is closed if nothing were to come of it.
: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)
More WP:TE from Dan56, also misrepresenting a tag: --] (]) 03:47, 13 February 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)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
: IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from ] so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (]), by any means necessary. ] (]) 04:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::And again, which is, in actuality, precisely Dan56's concern and source for being "disgruntled" at this ANI and his retaliation claims. --] (]) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


In reference to Lapadite's accusation that I "misrepresented a tag", he is not being truthful. clearly shows he added a "failed verification" tag without good reason, to which I responded in my following revision and removed the tag. He then , albeit with the edit summary "Undid revision by Dan56", and is now falsely accusing me of misrepresenting it. He added a "failed verification" tag, and I responded to it in my revert. ] (]) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


:Dan56 lies and misleads again; The ''actual'' order is as follows: I , , then many hours and edits later, Dan56 .
:He's also edit warred again, whilst violating BRD during another RFC he opened: , , --] (]) 04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:: ]. Also, you removing my ''original'' addition of prose from ''NME''{{'}}s review and then choosing to revise it after I had restored what you'd reverted doesn't make your revised version the ''original''. ] (]) 06:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{edit conflict}}Responding to Dan56's , which was replaced by the one above; Another frankly pathetic projection of what Dan himself has been called out on multiple times, by various editors. Dan56 also . Notice how he also sidestepped evidence of his lies. Dan56, re the above, you need to respond on the talk page, not here. That is not the case at all, and I suggest you read ] thoroughly. --] (]) 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


That Wikihounding accusation Dan56 made and linked to (as did I initially) on articles Coexist (album) and Xx (album)? Now, Dan56 has reverted the made by me which he → , . Did I not mention the retaliation, hypocrisy and projection of his own behaviors? --] (]) 06:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
, , .
*Problem is, ANI is for incidents, not behavior. The RfC on Dan, mentioned above and available at ], was railroaded by a sock, but as closer {{U|Beeblebrox}} mentioned, there were legitimate concerns there, and a shortlist of recommendations. We've done away with the RfC/U process, of course, and I don't know what it is replaced with, but RfC/Us were precisely for these kinds of situations, for patterns of behavior that indicate disruption of one kind or another without crossing the boundary of CIVIL, for instance, or EW. I'm not familiar with the editor who filed the claim here, but I am with {{U|Ritchie333}}, whose opinion I value, and {{U|JG66}} has a slew of GAs and doesn't seem to have fallen off a turnip truck. {{U|Dan56}}, I ''strongly'' urge you to make a substantive comment here, not just a repartee of an individual comment by Lapadite. Because it is possible that an admin in a foul mood comes by here and says, ''hmm, yes, longterm issues of OWNership and favoritism of this source over that, BITEyness of new editors, borderline edit warring, canvassing and copyright issues, hmm already suggested by an RfC going back a half a year and still happening--perhaps some action is warranted''. I'm not going to be that admin since I think the good outweighs the bad, and you do a lot of good stuff around here, but sheesh Dan, please address the actual criticism. You may not want to be a teamplayer, but you simply have to be. Thanks, ] (]) 18:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for your input Drmies. The problem is that, Dan56 merely getting just another slap on the wrist, another "be a team player, don't do it again". As he has shown and actually implied himself countless times, he has ''no'' plans to change his disruptive editing practices and behavior. The conglomerate of evidence presented is ''unequivocal'', the long pattern of disruption and disputes unequivocal, the number of editors in the past speaking out against Dan56's behavior unequivocal, and yet because Dan56 has promoted some GAs and FAs (I'm sure given his history, appropriating articles himself) or has some admin connection, there's hesitation? If this were an IP, or a new editor, they would have been sanctioned, blocked or topic banned right quickly. I've edited collaboratively with multiple editors from various Wikiprojects who've written and promoted multiple GAs and FAs and have never had any problems with any of them; they actually work collaboratively, are civil and uphold guidelines, and don't hide behind some 'status' to go on doing as they please where they please. 'Status'/WP accomplishments doesn't and shouldn't give one a free pass for such egregious editing behavior. ], ]. {{u|Drmies}}, ANI appears to be the only place to report this, something that isn't remotely an isolated incident. See Dan56's hypocritical, laughable, projecting claim above: "IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can ''develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary''" - speaks volumes. I mean what more is there to say, beyond more corroboration and more links? Admins either disregard (thereby implicitly validating) this long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF (e.g., ; , , , , ), WP:POV, WP:GWAR +, or they actually decide to take ''long'' due action. --] (]) 00:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Lapadite, I don't know what to tell you. I'm somewhat on the fence and since I participated in the RfC I'm hardly uninvolved, even if I did know what to do here. This needs more eyes, no doubt. ] (]) 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
::::] - I will say again what I said six months ago, and what ] alluded to four months ago. There is a counter-intuitive aspect to extremely possessive involvement with articles or with the characterization of their genres. You have been so heavily involved in some articles that you risk losing the ability to be involved with them at all, because Misplaced Pages does not allow an editor to assume ] of articles. A common response to article ownership attitudes is a topic ban, and you risk being topic-banned from music articles. I warned you of that six months ago. I won't make the proposal to impose that ban at this time, but I don't see a positive or collaborative response by you, and I am likely to support a proposal by another editor to impose a topic-ban. ] (]) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::::This thread has gone on for more than a week, and it is time either to consider a topic-ban or to close the thread with one final warning. ] (]) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::You might find an uninvolved admin by posting on AN. Sadly {{U|TParis}} left us--that's one fewer admin who wasn't afraid to jump in and cut Gordian knots. ] (]) 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Drmies}}, is it appropriate to post this on AN? The noticeboard says: "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." I think, if uninvolved admins aren't available and this is unresolved then ArbCom would be the final step. --] (]) 05:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::] - Yes. Yes, I will explain. Your reading is correct that this board is for specific issues and disputes, and this is a specific issue or dispute; but ] was suggesting that a request for formal closure of this thread be posted to ], not that this thread be restarted on AN. This thread has gone on for more than a week, and is getting nowhere. You are continuing to dump about Dan56's article ownership, with which I agree, and about Dan56's copyright issues, which I haven't looked at, but have not taken the time to make a formal proposal. You are just venting, and are continuing to engage in personal attacks. (Yes, it is still a personal attack to say that an editor is lying.) At the same time, Dan56 is continuing to restate his issues with the editing by other editors and to say that there are other bad editors who are worse. Since you, Lapadite77, won't make a formal proposal for a topic-ban, this thread is just wasting pixels. What is now needed is a request for formal closure of this thread, which has degenerated to just two editors dumping on each other. It probably will end in another final warning to Dan56, and it should also end in a warning to you, Lapadite77, about accusations of lying. This thread needs formal closure. ] (]) 16:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Right: AN is the place to find a <s>sucker</s> admin willing to read this over and close it. I do think that Robert McClenon has a valid point, that this is devolving into little more than namecalling: "more heat than light" is likely a phrase used by a closing administrator, and that's kind of a shame. ] (]) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{u|Drmies}}; {{u|Robert McClenon}}, I'd hoped you had read the entire ANI thread as I ''did'' formally request a '''topic ban''', and direct evidence (Diffs) was provided of Dan56's lies. I was not asking if the thread should be reposted on AN but if it would be appropriate to ask for admin input there on an ANI incident (I'm not familiar with it). This has gone on for however long it has gone on because no admin has cared enough to do anything about it. The reason there's been a "back and forth" here is precisely because Dan56 has decided, instead of giving a substantive response, to throw out baseless accusations and retaliation claims; and I respond to such, otherwise normally a lie unanswered to is a lie confirmed. So you're suggesting because nothing has been done, that it should just be closed, with a warning for both of us? Another warning for Dan56, and a warning for me for bring up editing abuse by an editor that has been the subject of numerous similar disputes, from various editors? It's just another confirmation that regardless of how much evidence provided, however many diffs, points laid out, specific action requested, ANI is essentially useless and editors like this are given free will to do as they please, disrupting where they please, driving editors away, as I'd been suggested by others. Very constructive to Misplaced Pages. Dan56 has restarted edit warring and POV pushing on the article in question (Version 2.0) - e.g., removing positive reviews from reliable sources and refusing to provide verification of a citation/source he found online and didn't access himself - , and without discussion, without waiting for Rfc response, anything: . So the expected thing is: edit warring continues, and nothing happens? --] (]) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Okay. I see that you, ], did include a request for a topic-ban in your post above that was ]. You buried it in there with a dump. If you had provided a heading requesting a topic-ban, you might have gotten '''Support''' comments, but you expected that everyone would read its whole length. In a fairer world, we would have read it, and you wouldn't have posted it, and you might have been blocked for the accusation of lying. (Even if you know with 100% certainty that Dan56 is making incorrect statements, can you read his mind to know that he knows that they are incorrect? If not, saying that he is lying is a personal attack.) I have taken the advice of Drmies and requested closure. ] (]) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Robert McClenon}} I'm not familiar with proper protocol here. You're right it was muddled in explanations. I'll add it to the heading for what it's worth. I see you had already requested closure on AN. --] (]) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


] (])
: {{user|Robert McClenon}}, unless you take a considerate and meaningful look into whatever disputes or "evidence" brought up in this thread, including the pathetic example posted under "Music genres" which I exposed in my response to it, then I don't feel the need to dignify this thread any longer. If you're interested in editors who exhibit ownership attitudes, then refer to ], where Lapadite has responded by throwing the same accusations (WP:OWN, tendentious editing, etc.) at {{user|Homeostasis07}}. ] (]) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Dan56 is misrepresenting again. Homeostasis isn't a random editor that reported me, Homeostasis was ''with'' Dan56 in the past dispute at a Garbage article, doing the exact same thing Dan56 was doing (all in the links provided here), albeit to a lesser degree there (Dan56 really had it covered). He was reported by me for edit warring for tendentious editing on another of that band's article in October 2014 (which was linked here and in the report below). I haven't had any interaction with him since; he's disgruntled about this report (which he mentions), and the only thing he's doing is retaliating, accusing me of the things Dan56 is reported for here using the same links used here, sticking up for his likeminded ally there, and engaging in 'character assassination'. Like I said there, just a baseless retaliation report; And ''that'' is the kind of thing that would warrant a warning for the editor who posted it. --] (]) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (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 ==
::: ^ An absolutely ridiculous and '''misrepresenting''' summation of events. I was never "with" Dan56, I merely opposed Lapadite77's proposal , since then I've stayed well clear of this mess. is the bogus edit warring report Lapadite filed against me in October (nothing to do with "tendentiousness", like he's trying to suggest). As you can see, it was dismissed as "no violation", that still didn't stop him to the closing admin. I'm surprised {{ping|Robert McClenon}} and {{ping|Drmies}} have reacted to Dan56 the way they have. If you actually delve in to what Lapadite is posting, you'd see some serious skewing and misrepresentation of the entire situation. The links Lapadite77 posted to demonstrate Dan56's "long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF" were in fact Dan reverting genuine vandalism. At least he attempted to post some diff's this time. He usually just calls you "tendentious" and accuses you of Cherrypicking, OWN, NPOV and OR without ever providing a diff. Lapadite77 has a seriously unhealthy attitude towards contributing to Misplaced Pages, and this entire situation stems from it. He has a huge "me-against-the-world" mentality. Instead of discussing something decently, he immediately accuses opposing editors of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: - and has demonstrated and lacked ] at every turn. And despite separate RfC's at ], he is still there. Action of some kind would be appreciated either here or , because the level of is ridiculous. ] (]) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::What a joke. One can see just how biased Homeostasis is when he deems my recent linking of Dan56's continued ''overt'' edit warring at the Version 2.0 article (again clear POV-pushing, and tendentious editing, such as removal of positive reviews from reliable sources, refusing to provide verifiable citation/source, as stated in the diffs there) to be evidence of edit warring on ''my'' part, not his. He has not and does not at all disagree with Dan56's tendentious editing and OWN behavior, nor his edit warring (which he himself has evidently engaged in in the past) at that bands articles of course. See how he, like Dan, just repeats the exact language I've used in my report on Dan56 on the baseless accusations fest in which he's instilled himself. Unlike what he claims, Homeostasis is not remotely just a random editor that stumbled upon the rfc from that Garbage (album) dispute linked and "merely opposed" a proposal from me on that article (which was, unlike what both have claimed, and as one can easily see toward the end of it, successful); we had had a disagreement before, and he showed on the talk page of another of this bands articles that he has a bias against that band. That was the subject of the edit warring report I , which he calls "bogus" as the admin that closed it deemed the edit warring no violation because it was a 'content dispute'. In the Garbage (album) talk dispute he and Dan56 linked, he had accused me (out of all the other editors there) multiple times of being an IP that was making unwanted edits on the article. If admins care for this particular, involved dispute from Homeostasis, I have ''no'' problem providing the diffs for all I've mentioned. Until then, this is merely a pointless, redundant, vendetta-driven series of ranting posts from an editor that has nothing to do with this particular report but is just disgruntled that Dan56, whom he supports, is being reported, by me. As Robert McClenon had suggested above, this is the kind of thing that does warrant a warning for the editor. --] (]) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
===Hasteur's Alternative Proposal===
Since this thead is way over the ] threshold, I suggest we reset it with some basic ground rules.
# {{U|Lapadite77}} come up with a '''short and concise''' posting explaining the problem, what supporting documentation they have (diffs only, no editorializing), and what resolution they seek from Dan56.
# {{U|Dan56}} responds in 1 section without cutting up Lapadite77's comments explaining what mitigating circumstances may be present.
# Both "disputants" then step back and not post unless specific questions are directed at them (probably via {{tl|U}} pings).
# The community at large reviews the issues at hand and decides what the best way to resolve this dispute that has passed over from content to conduct disruption.


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
Please feel free to comment, but I'm frankly sick and tired of raging back and forth with no resolution. ] (]) 14:14, 16 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)
In an attempt to gather from months of exceedingly disruptive pattern of editing culminating on the article in question, (an album from the band ]), primary points are presented in the following:
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
·Proposal – ''']''' for {{user|Dan56}}<br>
{{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)
·Reason – repeatedly and willfully violates multiple guidelines and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he deliberately pushes his view whilst disregarding other editors' input. Long-standing violations of ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (Dan56 has also been denounced for ] and ] in the past, pointed out by an editor who commented here, ]), and zero indication Dan56 has ever had or has any plans to change (], ]), which he himself has implied more than once (e.g., , , , )<br>
: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)
·Some diffs (far too many to list all, but not opposed to presenting more if asked) – largely taken from posts throughout this thread:
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*AGF: , , , ; adressed and
:::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)
*"Hounding":
::::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)
*WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:POV, Cherry picking, edit warring, in article editing (in the first diff, disruptively removes reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: + + ; + ; + + + ; + + + ; , /, , , , , , , , , ; , , ; + + , ; , , ; + , , , , , , , , ;
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)
Talk page where 'discussion'/lack of collaboration took place: ].
Past band album article where the same, all of the above behavior (including genre warring), was exhibited (about 7 months): ]
<br>


: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?
Summary of the above sections of this report — Diffs are spread out and generally contextualized throughout this report. Dan56, in response and throughout out a back and forth, would repeat the same language and points I did in my report in retaliation with inaccurate accusations (which he also did in article diffs, some linked above). I called him out on lying/misrepresenting in the following, with evidence (which he then sidestepped, changing the subject): → , , ; → → , → . Dan56 accuses me precisely of what his motives evidently are: ; . {{user|Homeostasis07}} - an editor that has nothing to do with this report, but is involved and entirely biased as (a)he had participated with Dan56, supporting his WP:TE, POV editing, in a past dispute at ], (b)has had prior disputes with me regarding the same issues at this band's articles, (b)was reported by me for edit warring through persistent, repetitive WP:TE on ] in October of 2014 - then began making 'character assassination' posts on me on ANI, using the same language and points I did in this report through inaccurate and baseless accusations against me, because he is ], by me in particular, for doing doings he's supported at this band's articles.
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
<br>
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)
I can provide more diffs or further explanation/clarification of anything if needed. The along with its is notable.<br>


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
Spike Wilbury ] further elaborating on some of Dan56's past disputes and initiating a proposal; ] also on Dan56's history. An admin, ], commented above, but said they are/were in some way involved therefore will not make a verdict. ], who commented above, .
<br>
Pinging editors that have publicly commented on this report: {{u|Ritchie333}}, {{u|JG66}}, {{u|Spike Wilbury}}, {{u|Drmies}}, {{u|Robert McClenon}}, {{u|Hasteur}}. --] (]) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


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.
== ] on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism" ==


'''Key Points:'''
{{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:


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


'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
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)
: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)
::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)
:::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 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)
:::::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)
:::::::::::Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find ''multiple'' reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —] (]) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. ] (]) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —] (]) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. ] (]) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's ''only'' stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —] (]) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::WSM is commonly labeled and describes itself as , which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing '''anti-Leninist Classical Marxists'''. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this ''Marxist'' group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. ] (]) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —] (]) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. ] (]) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
*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)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
* ] 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 />
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
** 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 />
# 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.
] (]) 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)


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
: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)
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
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)


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.
:'''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)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
:'''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)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
:'''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)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (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)


:"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.
=== Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st ===
:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.

:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: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)
:(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)
:*'''Support''' Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. ]] 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
:*'''Oppose''' any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to ] rather than dragging him to ]. —] (]) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Psychonaut}}This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. ]] 19:29, 9 February 2015 (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).
:*'''Oppose''' At worst he got into an edit war on ], but it was such a slow burning edit war that he never came close to violating ] (and he wasn't trying to game the system either doing reverts every 24 hours) and he tried to just use tags for the part he thought failed verification but those were removed. He did misunderstand ] and removed sources that were not in English. And I should note that when ] was pointed out to him on his talk page he said "thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa" This is far from siteban worthy (I don't think it is even topic ban worthy). --] (]) 13:23, 10 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)
:::Like I said below, it made no difference if the sources were in English and it made no difference if they said what the article said, verbatim. Nothing was read or considered. If previous comments on the talk pages of libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc, are any indication, it's hard to imagine how one can suspend enough disbelief to see this behavior as something done in good faith. Nonsense like this seems to happen all the time and I'm tired of it, for one. ] (]) 17:43, 10 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:
::::The only English source that he removed did not support the statement (sense been corrected by a different editor). --] (]) 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: •
:::::That is absolutely, 100% false as I've already explained '''three times now''', here and on the article's talk page. ] (]) 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: •
:*'''Support''' per clearly ] "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". His editing resembles a ] purely to ] his view that libertarian socialism is not a movement, and thus removes references to libertarian socialism from numerous articles, To further his cause he uses edit-warring, pretends he can't translate, and uses the deceitful practices of double-editing (first removing the reference and tagging, then removing the actual statement a few hours later). This whole process causes considerable time wasting and acrimony. This isn't just recent behavior but a long-term problem, just look at his record. WP would be a better place without him. --]&nbsp;] 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: •
:*'''Support'''. I wasn't sure until reading the objections, but now it's clear that this is all pretty disingenuous, and that some people are just repeating the same falsehoods in defense of this user, no matter what anyone says. Five years is plenty of time for someone to change their behavior. ] (]) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: •
:*'''Oppose'''. Misplaced Pages works best if people question flaky citations, and that is what Darkstar1st has been doing. Finx and Mrjulesd feel threatened by that and so are campaigning to have Darkstar1st blocked. This is wrong. Various editors have looked into their objections to Darkstar1st, and found that the accusations did not really stand up. Mrjulesd claimed that Darkstar1st was edit warring in a report at ], but when I looked into the accusations, the case against Darkstar1st had been overstated, and Finx and Mrjulesd had edit-warred just as much on the page in question as Darkstar1st, and none of them had broken the 3 revert rule. As for accusations of POV pushing - Finx and Mrjulesd make statements like: "non-Marxist communists are generally known as libertarians"!--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 08:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::and many more
:::For the context on that quote, which is totally and verifiably true in context (as explained in the article on anarchist a.k.a. ]), see ] started by Darkstar1st's wanting to remove libsoc from the article on libertarianism. I find it hilarious that I'm supposed to be in some kind of conspiracy with Mrjulesd, who only stepped into this matter after seeing it on ANI, AFAIK. ] (]) 09:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Look if we're all wrong he really needs to come to ANI to defend his position, and give an explanation for his editing patterns. These are serious allegations, his lack of input here is plainly unsatisfactory. --]&nbsp;] 11:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Support'''. Have we really been discussing this problem for five years? I think that's enough time to come to a decision. ] (]) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC) :::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' with ], which would of course entail a topic ban if he were ever reinstated. If someone so clearly ] is to get the message, he needs an indef ban. ] (]) 09:53, 11 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)
:*'''Oppose''', why are people complaining that Darkstar1st removed which had no reference? Finx is adding labels with no reference or bad references, so Finx is breaking policy, not Darkstar1st. ] (]) 12:19, 11 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)
:::Where have I done this? ''None'' of those labels were originally added by me and I was usually not the first to revert their removal. I ''did'' provide sources on four occasions: three from the concerned parties' own publications, one from a respected American academic and authority on regional politics and several others on talk pages (from pertinent and well known political journals, Kevin Carson's think tank, etc). I'm not sure where I broke policy. ] (]) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A lot of articles about socialist groups are old and have few if any references. Your first example, ] is entirely unsourced. Rather than improve articles on socialism, Darkstar1st has decided to remove any reference to libertarianian in them, believing that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible. He has also as mentioned above removed sources before deleting text, and argues that reliable sources are using incorrect translations when they call foreign groups libertarian. But it is no defense at ANI to say one is right - that is an issue of content that should be decided in the relevant content noticeboards. Right or wrong, editors must work collaboratively with others, which Darkstar1st vehemently refuses to do. ] (]) 05:09, 12 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)
::::I think you are mistaken. If you look at (for example) ] you will see useful collaborative behaviour by Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, Finx and other editors that resulted in better citations in the article. None of that would have happened if Darkstar1st had not questioned a the citation to the statement that the party were socialist libertarians.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 21:43, 12 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)
:::::Actually, this is just the latest in a succession of clueless campaigns of POV editing and ] from Darkstar1st. For example he has repeatedly tried to insert ill-sourced contentious material about Paul Krugman and other left-of-center figures, and he tried repeatedly to portray Adolf Hitler and Nazism as a leftist socialist. Check his contributions if you wish to familiarize yourself with his history. ]] 22:24, 12 February 2015 (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)
'''
:* '''Oppose''' Draconian solutions are ''very rarely wise'', and I see no evidence that this is an exception. Misplaced Pages does not benefit from removing editors of disparate opinions, and I see no reason why this should be an exception from that precept either. ] (]) 11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:* '''Support Topic Ban''' Even if some edits aren't technically against the rules (such as deleting unsourced), ], and the larger impact has been disruptive and ]. ] ] 12:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' It looks like this will go the way of no-consensus. Perhaps ArbCom would be better if both sides of the argument have issues with one another? ] ] 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' Normally i would agree with you, but have you looked at his history? See the content in "Examples of past disruption" below. This is long term abuse. --]&nbsp;] 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' It's apparent from a little research that routinely getting honest editors banned is used as a tactic to remove them from the consensus pool, resulting in a consensus of a dedicated few for politically motivated bias in several articles. This attempt is just another example of this effort. ] (]) 21:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
::::User:BlueEyesCryin seems to be a single-purpose account, thus a tag seems appropriate per WP:SPA. '']'' <sup>(])</sup> 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' So far all you have have done is contributed to ] a few times, an active interest of User:Darkstar1st. And you support his views. That and two userspace posts, and this post here. Are you in anyway connected to User:Darkstar1st? It looks a lot like a sock account. Maybe ] will be interested. --]&nbsp;] 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::*Then take it up with ]. Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned, too, strengthening the consensus for the politically motivated bias I pointed out above. ] (]) 23:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::::*''"Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned"'' are you admitting it then? Btw can't you realise you've doing been doing wrong? It's one thing to have political views, but it's another thing completely to try to bias WP articles for your cause. If you want to ] you're in the wrong place. --]&nbsp;] 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::*Your false and dishonest accusations and bullying tactics won't work on me. May peace be with you. ] (]) 00:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' just in case anyone thinks this is recent behaviour take a look at the archive . Here are a few choice examples:
{{collapse top|Examples of past disruption}}
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Darkstar1st "It appears to be the consensus that Darkstar has indeed been disruptive in their response to concerns about content, but while the content itself is pretty well covered in this RfC, the limited scope (behavior in regard to one episode) does not allow us to draw broad conclusions."
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Minor_disruption_--_Darkstar1st_deleting_talk_page_comments
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#Darkstar1st:_violation_of_policy_at_WP:DISRUPT.2C_failure_or_refusal_to_get_the_point.2C_tendentious_editing
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive662#Personal_attacks_.28Re:_Darkstar1st.29
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive621#Request_for_community_ban_of_Darkstar1st
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Talk_page_disruption_by_Darkstar1st
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#That_User:Darkstar1st_be_restricted_from_editing_Talk:Libertarianism_for_23_hours
Edit warring:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive158#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Will_Beback_.28Result:_72_hours.29
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:RolandR_.28Result:_48_hours.29
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive140#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Blocked_for_48_hours.29
There are plenty more complaints against him. {{ping|The Four Deuces}}, as proposer do you also support a site ban? I think you should make this clear. {{ping|The Four Deuces}} --]&nbsp;] 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

:*'''Support''' the ban, clearly Darkstar1st is unable to edit neutrally on contentious topics. I recall seeing their name as a part of the (relevant?)] where, afaict, they seemed to have escaped direct sanctions -- yet should have taken that inclusion as a clear warning. '']'' <sup>(])</sup> 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Regrettable support''' All other measures have failed to deter Darkstar from tendentious editing. A site ban will prevent further disruption from him, and also deter future editors from following a similar path. ] (]) 04:26, 17 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)

:''Note:'' I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- ] (]) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

* I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on ]. That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --] (]) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:* Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --]&nbsp;] 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::]{{tq| Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.}} If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --] (]) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. ] (]) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --] (]) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. ] (]) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --] (]) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: ] (]) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --] (]) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Misplaced Pages is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former '']'' (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --] (]) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. ] (]) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --] (]) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::It does not matter if an editor is following content policy and is not something we can decide here. ] (]) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od|10}}
'''There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st.''' I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --]&nbsp;] 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{User|Zzaxx1}} has been edit warring across multiple pages and templates against multiple editors. The main article being ], which resulted in but the user has continued to and , despite . He has also . Thank you.--] (]) 15:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:While I have a certain amount of sympathy for your position, it does appear that you've been edit warring to remove cited material as well. --] 15:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::I contend that I have not removed cited material, as the sources did not cite what was being expressed, but regardless I have not crossed ] unlike the above user. But if it helps, I'll excuse myself from editing anything about the disputed content anywhere on Misplaced Pages until consensus is reached.--] (]) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::For example, {{diff|Marvel Cinematic Universe|prev|646559226|here}} -- it appears that the text you removed correctly explains the content of that link. Holding off on article editing while discussion is ongoing is ], though. You can edit war without violating 3RR, after all.... --] 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::As you can that particular bit of information was already present under the subject heading . The edit was redundant and mislead readers by placing it under the wrong heading. Maybe a better edit summary would have been in this instance.--] (]) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::But that is not what ] getting, it has been confirmed by both Marvel and Sony, that Spider-Man (though the character and the film rights will stay at Sony) will appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, will appear in a Marvel movie which would be distributed by Disney, before the character's standalone movie. Heres the source that was from the Wall Street Journal confirming what I just said.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/marvel-and-sony-reach-deal-on-spider-man-movie-production-1423546677|title=Marvel and Sony Reach Deal on Spider-Man Movie Production|author=Ben Fritz|date=February 10, 2015|work=WSJ|accessdate=February 09, 2015}}</ref> I honestly don't get why we are having this discussion its been confirmed by Marvel that Spider-Man will appear in the MCU, and its completely unnecessary for Triiple to disgorge edits that editors on Misplaced Pages put with confirming sources stating that Spider-Man is in the MCU, like Marvel.com, Wall Street Journal, Variety but he keeps on deleting them and saying there is a discussion which is totally unnecessary. --] (]), 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::{{ping|Zzaxx1}} If you would join the discussion then you would see the arguments being made by myself and other editors. I am not alone in my reasoning and your reverting of other editors besides me shows that. None of the sources you cited state that the proposed Spider-Man ''film'' is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe only that they reached a deal for the Spider-Man character to appear in the MCU and that they are "exploring opportunities" for MCU characters to appear in future Spider-Man films. However this is not the place to discuss content but behavior. It seems you still have not gotten the idea that discussion is a crucial part of collaborative editing.--] (]) 18:21, 12 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)
#
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
#
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
#
*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Zzaxx1 appears to be continuing his edit war.--] (]) 20:27, 16 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)
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @],
*:::::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. ]] 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (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)
*::::::::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)
*::::::::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)
*:::::::::Dear @],
*:::::::::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)
*::::::::::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)
*:::::::::<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)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
== User Flyer22 and User EvergreenFir - Hounding, harassment ==
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
----
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.


'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
User Flyer22 has been repeatedly making accusations of me, and posted harassing and insulting comments despite my request for them to stop.


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
Harassing comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Binksternet#Feminism_article
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
Request to stop, and failure to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Flyer22#Dispute_resolution
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'':
Same goes for the user EvergreenFir, who has been following me around to pretty much everywhere I post and making snide comments and remarks. Requesting an Administrator review their actions to ensure they are in line with Misplaced Pages policies and rules. ] (]) 19:54, 11 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.}}


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
Forgot to mention, additional comments by EvergreenFir are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement


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.()
I'm just sick of these guys following me around everywhere and trying to start an argument. ] (]) 19:56, 11 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;...}}
:What specifically do you consider to be "harassing and insulting comments"? ] 20:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::You should include some ] to show what you mean. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:23, 11 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''
:::I don't know why Flyer22 started talking about me. They on Binksternet's talk page, solely to comment about me. This user started making accusations about my account and another user's account (failing to follow the standard Misplaced Pages protocol for investigating sockpuppets). I proceeded to they could have and administrator review my account (subtly hinting that they should actually go find one, instead of talking on a talk page). They , and decided to yet again post making accusations of me being a "sockpuppet". They also attempt to invoke some form of official authority by linking to a section of their user page about "WP:Sockpuppet_watch". To be honest, I would expect someone who claims to be part of a "sockpuppet watch" to actually know what the procedures are for dealing with a suspected sockpuppet (hint: proper procedure is NOT to follow them around hurling accusations at them). Finally, I decided to track the information on dealing with sockpuppets down , gave them a link to the proper procedures, and asked them to stop making accusations against me outside of the proper venue. from flyer22 at the same time (probably was making their comment while I was making mine).
:::Here is one of the biggest problems I have with Flyer22: After (politely) giving them the information on reporting sockpuppets and asking them to stop posting these accusations against me in talk pages, . Incredibly immature, crosses the line. And they did it . And then they .
::::Finally, I initiated the formal dispute process. I went to their talk page and . And . They got rude and aggressive. And then .
::::And that's where things stand with Flyer22.
::::Now, with EvergreenFir: I first encountered them on the Feminism talk page and the Men's Rights movement talk page, no problems there. They followed me to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement (which is also not a problem).
::::However, they . Made an edit with the notes being "rp - STICK" and basically accused me of "beating a dead horse". Generally, insulting and condescension are not acceptable arguments for discussions following pre-approved guidelines. The use of the word "equal" in quotes is also quite condescending in context - though that one is harder to quantify. That, plus their other comments, makes it clear they want no discussion to take place on this subject - in which case, their other actions are cast in a different light.
::::I , letting them know that I thought their comment was aggressive, hostile, and condescending. I suggested they be more careful with the wording of their posts, as well as some other suggestions.
::::EvergreenFir's response was not to own up to their mistakes, but to say . Then they (again) use condescending language by accusing me of being a "new editor and all". I that their comment had not addressed nay issues, and asked them to refrain from comments that did not add to the conversation. Then there's an that I am using multiple accounts due to my knowledge of "hounding"/google/search phrases. I reminding them how to report a sockpuppet account, and that their comment was otherwise offtopic.
::::HERE'S THE KICKER: EvergreenFir and left yet another rude and condescending comment.
::::If anyone is using sockpuppets, I would imagine it's Flyer22/Flyer2222 (Flyer2222 left a comment on EvergreenFir's page - account name is quite close to Flyer22). But I won't report them for that because it could be seen as harassment having multiple reports. ] (]) 23:02, 11 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.''
:::::*Looks like a straightforward case of meatpuppetry to me. There has been considerable off-site coordination regarding the men's rights page. In Reddit discussion, for example, activists bemoan the state of the article and plan their collective resistance against Misplaced Pages's feminist oppressors or something. One redditor suggests {{tq|Let's edit the feminism wiki article in the EXACT same way, then document how those edits and editors are treated.}} That's when BrentNewland arrives to demand equal (one might say, the "EXACT same") treatment for feminism and the men's rights movement , regardless of the RS for the subjects. Men's rights related pages are on article probation but more (admin) eyes would help deal with the recent influx of new editors or relatively new reactivated accounts. --] (]) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm shocked to discover that there's been off-site canvassing from MRM. Shocked. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::It's gotten worse after the GamerGate ArbCom decision. They talk about GamerGate ''a lot'' and what it means for their strategy in approaching the article about "their" movement. Maybe that adds to your shock;) The most recent coordination on Reddit is definitely at least partially responsible for the arrival of so many new and reactivated accounts. --] (]) 22:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
::::::::I only have one Misplaced Pages account. As I told them, if they suspect me of something, they can follow the proper process. Harassing me, hounding me, following me around is not following the proper process. There is no excuse for their actions. I have been editing Misplaced Pages for years. Just because I don't always do it when logged in doesn't mean I'm some new guy. ] (]) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
:::::::::I don't think you understand what is meant by ], you are not being accused of having another account. I am however glad you have ] to this issue. ] 22:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]''
::::::::::Boomerang? Shot myself in the foot? Please. I am no puppet - sock or meat. The fact that you have linked to WP:Boomerang while saying "drawn attention" leads me to believe that nobody here has any intention of actually investigating my complaint. Instead, you've gone on a ]. ] (]) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
{{od}}
*{{ec}} Regardless of whether or not BrentNewland is operating another account - and his comments about editing as an IP are not exactly exculpatory - he's clearly editing as a single-purpose disruptive account that, given the long dormancy, has probably been recruited from offsite. ArbCom sanction 1.2 may be applicable? –] (] &sdot; ]) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Single purpose account? I have edited several articles. If the admins check my IP logs, they'll see I've made many useful contributions. Just because a few edits recently have been on one subject does not make me a "single-purpose account". And as far as "disruptive", if attempting to address flaws in an article, then following the rules and bringing these flaws to the Admin's attention on the NPOV noticeboard is "disruptive", then perhaps the rules should be changed so following them isn't considered "disruptive". Also, ]. ] (]) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Followup===
:::*So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page. I'm sure Flyer22 <small>and any admin if such data exist and are accessible to them</small> can tell you that Flyer22's talk page has been on my watchlist for quite some time. I am alerted to edits there via my watchlist. Imagine my delight to see BrentNewland's edit. Anyway, too much ] around here for my formerly-vegetarian tastes. Ciao. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.


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. ]]
::::Ok, I think it's {{diff|User talk:BrentNewland|prev|646716577|about time}} to invoke ] and the various probations/discretionary sanctions he's been notified of and impose at least a topic ban. Anybody? --] 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::::Need to be a little bit careful here; the notifications issued were at 22:22, 10 February 2015 (MRM article probation) and 23:03, 11 February 2015 (gender-related DS; less than four hours ago). I'm not seeing good signs from the editor, but I'm not really seeing anything that would justify invoking the probation sanctions or DS after the relevant notification. I note also that the article probation notification was not correctly logged. ] (]) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
===My experience with Flyer22 and EvergreenFir===


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
It's very easy to get rattled by the aggressiveness of {{u|Flyer22}} and {{u|EvergreenFir}}. They do seem to '''suddenly appear''', as {{u|BrentNewland}} says above. As a newly returned editor, I thought I could edit as I had before. But when I edited ], in terrible shape at the time, with very poor sources, original research and a huge quote, see:, I received a series of 11 posts from EvergreenFir (who hadn't edited the article before), starting with: She reverted me three minutes after my edit, clearly not having evaluated my edit, and threatened me. I finally reverted her with the edit summary "FFS give me a couple minutes to put shit together" is not a reason to revert - stop battleground and ownership behavior)". And she stopped editing it.<p>I had tried to explain myself both on my talk page and on the article talk page, where I was accused of causing the talk to '''disintegrate into some sort of a men's rights discussion''' (by an editor who had never edited the article or the talk page before), though I'm a female. EvergreenFir had not edited that article before I did, and hasn't edited it since then. Almost all of my edits and my suggestions on the talk page were in one way or another ultimately implemented, after EvergreenFir and her supporters left. But I won't edit that article again, or any other article that's been edited in the last few years. I finally banned her from my talk page, an act that was used as evidence against me in an SPI report.<p>As for Flyer22, she also posted on my talk page several times in a very boastful and offensive walls of text, related to Lightbreather's request for her help in proving I was a sock of someone or other. Examples: <p>I felt bullied and ganged up on and haven't really been able to seriously edit articles since.<p>I respectfully suggest that Flyer22 and EvergreenFir to be encouraged to be more respectful and less abrasive and confrontive in their comments to other editors, even if they disagree with them. For my part, I'm trying to be so in dealing with editors on talk pages. (edited) ] (]) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)<p>
'''Additional comments'''. {{u|EvergreenFir}} says above:<p>{{quote|'''So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page.'''}}<p> Not exactly constructive. I don't think this type of response is a helpful to en:wiki, and I empathise with any editor who gets it. I give kudos to {{u|Gerda Arendt}} and her support of kindness, while all the while getting her points across, even when she disagrees and the same for {{u|GoodDay}}. And it does feel like "dogpiling" as {{u|Spudst3r}} says below. It makes for a terribly tense atmosphere, and hinders editors like me who aren't used to it to try to response well on talk pages when you feel under fire. Thanks! ] (]) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
===Sockpuppet accusations===
Also, I see that {{u|Flyer22}} is accusing {{u|Spudst3r}} of being a sockpuppet on the ] where {{u|EvergreenFir}} is also participating in a "Men's Rights Movement" discussion. I take no position on whether they are or are not a sock. But these accusations are used all too frequently to discredit an editor, rather than replying with evidence of POV sources etc., as is the purposed of that noticeboard. Since Flyer22 thinks Spudst3r is a sock, I think she should file an SPI rather than fling those accusations around on another forum, rather than addressing the issues at hand. She made it clear regarding me that she excelled at sniffing out socks. So file a report, Flyer22. If these accusations are repeatedly brought up, it tends to start being accepted as true and damages an editor's reputation. It also means an editor tends to feel that they've got to defend themselves against such attacks, rather than solely dealing with, in this case, the sourcing questions at hand. The NPOV noticeboard is not the place to gain support for your "side" by attacking an editor whose view is different. It doesn't further the goal of building an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


=== BrentNewland Topic ban propoal ===
I '''endorse''' a ''temporary'' '''topic ban''' but not anything else for the user, {{user|BrentNewland}}.
My proposal would be:
* 4 months (proposal to change in progress) of topic ban in the subjects of '''MRM''' and '''Feminism''' for {{user|BrentNewland}}. After the period is over, in consultation of an admin (who'll review his edits), he can again reach out to the community to gain approval in the editing sphere to go back to that niche and perform ''un-biased'' edits. He's also admonished for accusing editors of harassment when none has taken place.
* {{user|Flyer22}} is not admonished since he has accused him of meatpuppetry, rightly and not sockpuppetry. He's however directed to be a bit more pleasant in tone and not suggest that someone might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no evidence at all.
* {{user|EvergreenFir}} is not admonished at all.
<small>Proposal revised. (x2) --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
All in support may say "'''Aye'''" or "'''Nay'''" if not, below this proposal. Any constructive change to this proposal is also appreciated. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 04:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:Why only 4 months? They are clearly editing those articles just to be disruptive. Do we really want to invite them back for more later? There are plenty of other people working on those articles. I don't think BrentNewland will be missed. ] (]) 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|MoreTomorrow}} 4 months of topic ban is quite a lot for almost a SPA, isn't it? And, he'll need to regain community approval after the period is over, so I guess, it's fine. If one more reputed editor supports an increase to 6 months or such, I'll change my proposal. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 05:51, 12 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)
A tedious bureaucratic comment. First, sockpuppet allegations should be presented at ] rather than here. Second, harassment allegations are serious and require evidence, which hasn't been provided so far. Third, a proposed topic ban with exemptions for typo fixes or bots would be hard to administer, and would widen ] beyond even its current complexity. Fourth, being a SPA is not an offence. --] (]) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Euryalus}} He's ''apparently'' not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet and it's not possible to verify the credibility so we cannot have investigations either. I've revised the proposal to fix the issue put in the third point. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 11:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Being a SPA is not an offence. Ofc, it's not. I argued on the same thing a few days ago at ANI. But, once someone's a proved SPA, it becomes hard to judge the POV and decide whether it's unbiased or not. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
*I'm somewhere between '''meh''' and '''nay'''. As GoldenRing mentioned above, the warnings are fresh. Either the user will improve, they will cease to edit, or we just give them ]. Waiting is a win-win-quasiwin. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 06:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
*:Improving doesn't {{diff|User talk:BrentNewland|646821235|646743224|seem to be in the cards}}. --] 17:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Perhaps time to buy stock in the ]. My stocks in ] has paid off. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are all being absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe how far Misplaced Pages has fallen. I made, what, 2 edits, which were reverted, then I made no more. I'm harassed for it, I report the harassment following your rules, and you all decide to discuss banning me? Because of my political views? Even though I haven't broken a single rule? And your only evidence is you '''''FEEL''''' I '''''MIGHT''''' be a "meatpuppet"? ''And you let one of the people I brought claims against VOTE on this topic!?!?''


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
You know what, fine. Whatever. Ban me. Delete my account. If this is how you treat people who are just ], I don't '''''WANT''''' to be on Misplaced Pages. 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Tell you what. Edit something else. Prove that you understand how to use Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, not just how to quote them. Then we'll all shut up. --] 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:: {{ping|BrentNewland}} I think you haven't carefully observed two things. First, EvergreenFir is actually speaking '''for''' you. Second, this isn't a vote, this is a discussion to seek consensus on whether you presence in the community is appreciated or not. And the point is, we are not happy but we are willing to give you a second chance. For what it's worth, we are not endorsing a site-ban but just a topic-ban, your edits to the aforementioned subjects are actually quite nonconstructive and you should know it by now. I am honestly fed up with the community too. I've almost left the place. I mostly come on ANI just to defend newbies, just to defend them. Here you might think, I want to ban you. No, it's as simply as, at some point you've got to stop. You have been making quite biased edits which are not really quite satisfying to the community and if you want to survive, you're going to have to deal with it. The only reason that you have an allegation of a meatpuppet is because of your edits. I've realized that atleast, you are here in good faith. Most people are not. Let this be your first and last time, someone points a finger at you for your edits, but I believe reprimanding is necessary. All I want you to prove is that the community is damn wrong. You must prove, you're not a SPA, not a meatpuppet, not a biased article editor. Prove them wrong, in these 4 months, which you should accept, and I guarantee that you'll achieve happiness but respect from the community is not. Our community's a hidden dystopia, deal with it. If you ever have time, read and you'll realize things about life, that you should take in. Very respectfully. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 13:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*I say '''Aye'''. Regardless of the meatpuppetry issue, BrentNewland has fundamentally misapprehended our core content policies, especially NPOV. He continues to argue that feminism and men's rights movement need to be treated equally although other editors have explained (e.g., ) to him that feminism and men's rights movement are treated differently in RS and that Misplaced Pages must reflect that. His subsequent disruptive edits, like the tag bombing on the feminism page, are based on that fundamental and persistent misunderstanding of NPOV. Sure, we could give him more rope as EvergreenFir suggests, try to explain to him for the fifth and sixth time that he misunderstands how NPOV works, and waste more editors' time and patience in the process. Or we topic ban him for a few months so that he can work in less contentious topic areas and get experience following our NPOV policy and working with other editors. I think that the later option is preferable. However, all of us could be "more pleasant in tone" and I don't get why Flyer22 and EvergreenFir need an extra special reminder of that. They didn't cross the line into personal attacks or harassment. Their more or less oblique (I assume to avoid accusations of OUTING) suggestions that meatpuppetry is involved don't deserve that kind of censure. --] (]) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::They didn't harass Brent or otherwise, which is why they're not written in the proposal. He's cited nearly every Misplaced Pages policy to what he's done and it sounds really template-ish. EvergreenFir has been fine but Flyer22 has put forward quite agitated comments. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 16:31, 12 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)


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)
*'''nay''': I say this with all due deference to ], but this plain and simple looks like a ] against {{user|BrentNewland}} for bringing up valid concerns that he has backed up with evidence. What's even scarier is that by commenting here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm targeted similar to {{user|BrentNewland}}. The reaction he's getting is exactly the kind of ] {{user|BrentNewland}} was trying to bring attention to. It's the same . For admin considering actions here, I think ] is instructive.
: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 have already been a , so I'm speaking up to corroborate {{user|BrentNewland}} concerns. , then I struggle to see how the coordinated actions of {{User|Flyer22}}, {{User|Sonicyouth86}}, and {{User|EvergreenFir}} as like minded editors do not also constitute "meatpuppetry". I want to emphasize that the ] policy was enacted to prevent genuine abuse or dogpiling by like minds (much like we are seeing right here against {{user|BrentNewland}} by {{User|Flyer22}}, {{User|Sonicyouth86}}, and to a lesser extent, {{User|EvergreenFir}}), it's purpose is *not* to prevent ] edits, or to stop ] edits made with an awareness of ] and ].] (]) 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


::Your argument against the points about BrentNewland being a long dormant single purpose account would be far more convincing Spudst3r if you were not a long dormant ] yourself. For example: two of your 3 edits in 2014 were to ] and ]. 78% of your edits since suddenly returning in 2015 are about gender conflicts. And prior to those 3 sporadic edits in 2014 you were not active since 2012. Something brought both of you to Men's rights topic after Feb 5th and to many of the same pages. After the call for meatpuppets to make calls for edits to this site that reflect exactly what was suggested on reddit. That is '']'' meatpuppetry. And that policy reads that doing the bidding of offsite entities, organizations, groups etc in order to manipulate wikipedia in ways contrary to its own policies and regulations is meatpuppetry. <br>The newly closed ] Arbitration allows for any administrator to act against accounts "''with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy''". Abusing noticeboards, lobbying for misrepresentation of sources and breaches of WP:BATTLE constitute clear breaches of ] and ]. This is part of a deliberate long-running campaign of ] by off site entities designed to frustrate ''this site's'' rules, goals and standards in this topic area, in order to promote a point of view that may be popular on the internet but is not part of mainstream scholarly opinion. <br>Thus as it stands I '''agree with the topic ban for BrentNewland''' 4 months is ok (I'd have gone for 3 TBH) however meatpupptry by definition does not happen in a vacuum and I see at least 1 other account here deserving of the same prohibition--] <sup>]</sup> 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A few points: 1. I picked up editing activity ''before this article'' in January, making big contributions to the ] article.
: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)
:::2. Since my edits to masculism and men's rights movement, going back to those articles to improve them has always been on my to do list. If you want to know why my editing has picked up it's because I found a freelance job that gives me much freedom to pursue my own pursuits, such as editing wikipedia on my spare time. Do I have a big focus on this subject? Yes, but as noted earlier ] are not against the rules on wikipedia -- if you really want to call me that.
::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)
:::3. Instead of repeated ] on my intentions to limit my ability to contribute, I challenge you to look at the '''content of my edits'''. You will see I make extensive use of the talk page, and have collaboratively worked with other editors to find a consensus where disagreements exist.
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
:::RE: meatpuppeting accusations: Looking into the reddit article that began these meatpuppet claims, I noticed that one of the commenters there points out that It's unfortunate the men's rights subreddit is doing this, but I don't see how I can be blamed for their actions. Furthermore, I'm a little concerned how this page can ever receive valid contributors from a masculinist perspective if outside sources constantly judge them to be meatpuppets because of this subreddit constantly calling attention to this page?! ] (]) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{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)
::::Forgive me if my expression above was terse or came across as personal - there is no ''ad hominem'' above it is an accurate reflection of your contrib history. However the fact that wikipedia is again dealing with off-site interference is a problem for wikipedia. Single Purpose accounts that don't edit neutraly ARE against the rules. Making edits to one topic area is ok but doing so in order to achieve something outside the aims of this site, "raising profiles", "counter acting" '''perceived academic bias''' etc etc are all things that we have had years to develop rules to deal with (see the ARbCom rulings on Israel-Palestine and other nationalist, as well as the many Psuedo- and Fringe science wars). The fact that it took Gamer gate and the massive juvenile disruption of this site for ArbCom to act in relation to the long running (almost a decade) problem of gender conflict on wikipedia is more of an indictment of the shortsightedness of previous committees than anything else. I agree this is extremely unfortunate that redditers are doing this. It adds to the MRAs bad rep. And to the defcon on Misplaced Pages. It achieves the 100% opposite of what they want. But that's not my problem or wikipedia's it's those individuals'. For Misplaced Pages one of the most serious red flags is the repeated clamour to edit Men's movement pages to be the same as Feminist pages. Doing this is likely to raise eyebrows. It's the same as asking to edit Obama articles the same as GW Bush articles. It's '']'' agenda driven partisan editing that has nothing to do with ''Misplaced Pages's goals'' and everything to do with PR campaigns of offsite entities (that's not an accusation just an FYI). But you have to understand that in the context of pages where significant meatpuppetry occurs, on a regular basis, when a group of people show up, out of the blue, clamouring for the same things (which are BTW against policy or which require impossible changes to said policy) we'll see meatpuppetry. Especially when we see them ]--] <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
== Edit warring, personal attacks and hounding by former ] member ==
: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. ==
{{u|Volunteer Marek}}:
{{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)}}
*Followed me to an article he never edited to revert text that was added over nine months ago, claiming he knows what the consensus there is..
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-->
::And again removed the same text and more. He is claiming that I added the text, even though the diffs show that others added the text long ago.


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Continuously made disruptive edits in ], such as removing text on false pretexts:
:<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)
::Reverted a paragraph, claiming that RT is not a reliable source. This is debatable, but RT was only used as a source to prove that the person quoted is a historian; the main source for the paragraph was not RT.
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Added the revisionist label to the same historian without providing a source, which he should know is a ] violation.
{{abot}}
::Reverted text from a review criticizing the use of statistics, claiming that the review is positive and I cherry picked and "willfully and blatantly misrepresented" the source. I made no claim that the review is negative. The text simply states a fact from a review.
::Re-added a sentence to the intro that violates ]; this sentence was recently added without consensus by a disruptive user (who eventually was banned for edit warring).
::Change historian to journalist, even though reliable sources call the person a historian. He has his own explanation of why they are wrong (comment below).
::Removed relevant text without any discussion or consensus claiming he is shortening the section, when in fact he is removing important points.


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
*Constantly made personal attacks: "You are full of it", "Bull...", "you're just gaming the 3RR rule and engaging in tendentious editing", "only reason you haven't gotten blocked is because you're much better at gaming the system", that I sneaked in edits against consensus.
::Defended a disruptive user in the 3RR report I opened and accused me.
:::Also he attacked an admin who presented more evidence on that user in the 3RR report ("someone rightly calls you on your bullshit"). {{u|Ddstretch}} replied that Volunteer Marek simply did not read his comment carefully and there was no reason to call it "bullshit."
::Told me to go away on his talk page.
::Demanded that I provide a quote for the sourced text I added (almost right after I added it), implying that I did something wrong. I provided the quote, but he continued with threats. And no I did not misquote the author; it is almost a direct quote.


*Followed me to an admin's talk page to accuse me and stick up for like-minded users, even though the conversation had nothing to do with him.


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)
All this is in the EE topic area covered by ]. He was an active member of the ] under his old name.<br>
This is only one example of harassment by former EEML members. -] (]) 20:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
This is a relevant quote from the EEML findings: ''members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.'' -] (]) 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{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)
===Response===

This is a "preemptive strike" by user YMB239. In YMB239 misrepresented a source. Pretty blatantly and pretty grossly. I inquired about the actual text in source on the talk page here . YMB239 responded by providing a <u>partial</u> quote, trimmed just so it looked like the source supported the source. The KEY information was omitted in the little "...". I gave them another chance but told them that unless s/he was ready to stop misrepresenting the source (and changed his article text accordingly) I was going to report them. Apparently they decided that it'd be a good idea to preempt that by filing this bogus report here against me first.

This is a textbook illustration of ] attitude, combined with tendentious editing and POV pushing. When caught red-handed playing fast and loose with sources, quickly start attacking the other person that points out your misbehavior. And YMB239 has a history in this regard. The EEML is a irrelevant red herring, a bullshit excuse. As pointed out here <u>at least</u> six uninvolved users have had problems with YMB239's behavior. To repeat, they were: ], ], ], ], ],], ], ] - there's at least one or two admins in there. These editors are unrelated to EEML or anything else that YMB239 might dream up. And just recently, ] (a veteran editor like myself, who's been on Misplaced Pages since 2003) wrote in response to YMB239's false claims that they had "consensus" (apparently a consensus of one), quote: ''"I stopped arguing with you YMB29, '''not because I think that you have not harmed this article''' by including the text that you have, '''but because it was too much of a time sink''', and I have more constructive things to be doing with my time. A am pleased that someone else has taken up the baton and is willing to discuss it further with you. "'' (my emphasis)

That's what YMB239 has been doing for the past several months on this and related articles. They have been engaged in months long slow motion edit war, combined with a complete lack of good faith discussion on talk, characterized by ], apparantly designed to just simply wear, tire, and bore, those who take issue with YMB239's POV and edits, out, until they quit and let them have their way. This is extremely disruptive, has been noted and commented on by several users (in addition to those 6 listed above) and a topic ban from the relevant articles has been mentioned. Personally, as a content editor, I think the dishonest misrepresentation of sources to be worthy of a month long block on top of a topic ban.

For anyone who's interested, the full text source is . The text says pretty much the OPPOSITE of what YMB239 pretends it says.] (]) 21:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

===Comments===
Just to make this a bit less likely to hit ] the request to stay away from his talk page is a perfectly valid request on their part. ] (])(]) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:Ok, but he could have said it in a more civil tone. -] (]) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning users like Sayerselle and Paavo273, who were banned or warned for edit warring, is misleading.
I never had any real problems with Serialjoepsycho or Buckshot06. There was no reason for you to try to canvass these users here. -] (]) 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:Also, I had disagreements with PBS, but he never resorted to personal attacks or following me to other pages. He was not the only one editing that page. The idea that I somehow fooled everyone and pushed edits through without consensus months ago is ridiculous. -] (]) 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

::I've no clue what this dispute is over. Which article? This all sounds vaguely familiar. This have anything to do with Soviets raping Germans in Berlin at the end of world war 2?] (]) 21:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Yep. ] and ].] (]) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::You are just canvassing users to distract from the topic. This is not about content dispute. Me and Serialjoepsycho never had problems, only regular talk page discussion. -] (]) 22:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The place where I encountered YMB29 was ], which is the same place where he is currently edit warring. The problem is the refusal by YMB29 to accept consensus and move on, as seen in Archives 8, 9, 10, and the current talk page, which has wasted an enormous amount of editor time (essentially our only resource). In March through May 2014, and again starting in February 2015, when the consensus is clearly against him. -- ] (]) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:So you are claiming that I edited against consensus when I was not the one who added the recently removed text?
:Go read the archives and look at the page history. There was consensus to add the text to the footnotes. I wanted it in the article text, but accepted that there was no consensus for that. -] (]) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::PBS added the text to the footnote. and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009. -] (]) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how does the source say the opposite of what I quoted? Here is the link to the page in the book, so anyone could look and see that you are making false accusations again. -] (]) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|YMB29}} Before this turns into a pointless rehash of the talk page. I took the time to read through the talk page for ] from on before commenting here. I am completely uninvolved in this dispute. I have worked with ] exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors</p><p>Based on the talk page conversation I would say that everyone has been admirably restrained in dealing with your POV pushing. Trying to use ]and Albert Axell (Who as far as I can tell has published a couple mediocre popular histories and according to JSTOR no peer revieved work) in a controvercial article demanding the highest quality sources shows you are more interested in finding people that agree with your POV than representing what academic consensus is.</p><p>

:*You accuse ] of meat puppeting 10 February 2015, last Tuesday

:*You are informed that consensus was required for including of your sources by ] based on which you participated in.

:*You were of ARBEE DS on 27 Dec 2015 by ]

:*It looks like you have moved your edit waring to the talk pages by apparently removing another users comments and . Then proceeding to argue about it in an on the talk page. If it was an accident a simple 'ooppss I'm sorry' would have likely have been the end of it.

All of the above suggest to me that you are suffering from a very bad case of ] and are engaging in ] to push a fringe POV on this article against the consensus of <em>every other author involved with it.</em> If you do not understand that Misplaced Pages operates on consensus you need to take a break from editing this topic either willingly or enforced. There is currently no consensus for the changes you wish to make it is time to ] and move on. Based on what I have read I would endorse the targeted application of ]. ] (]) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:Did you bother to look at the evidence?
:Accusations like moving comments by a user (who was actually the one removing my comment) are ridiculous. I moved his comment to a new section to help along the discussion.
:Iryna Harpy and "My very best wishes" are also both hounding me. I did not present evidence on them because this section was big enough.
:You are going by claims by others without looking at what actually goes on. -] (]) 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:I realize that the numbers are against me, but that is exactly what the EEML ("My very best wishes" was also a member of that) was about. Converging on other users who were deemed hostile and creating a false consensus. -] (]) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{user|YMB29}} I assure that I'm not on good terms with Marek and the Ukraine are has been a disaster for years, BUT, when will-intentioned editors, lioke {{user|Jbhunley}} give you good advice, you need to heed that. Basically, you need to learn more about Misplaced Pages policy and learn how to address content disputes (and conduct disputes) in those terms. If you can accomplish that, you will be much more effective in seeing that the articles reflect the content as represented in ].--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Jbhunley simply looked at the number of accusations against me and concluded that the problem is with me. He did not look at the evidence I presented, and at the histories of the users he mentioned.
:::The problem here is a group of users (you should recognize them from the Ukrainian conflict articles) going around to different articles and removing sourced text for dubious reasons. -] (]) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|YMB29}} Yes, I have read the background and looked into the sources - did I not state that? You are trying to put a revisionist interpretation of history in a very controversial article based upon absolutely crap sources. Everything else is drama. An editor with the barest understanding of Misplaced Pages consensus policy would have stopped by now. Based on the RFC you were doing the same thing almost a year ago with much the same result. I can not imagine the frustration the other editors must be feeling with your behavior. If, with all the passion and dedication you exhibit in pushing your POV you have been unable to find better sources than you have presented then they likely do not exist or you would have found them by now. If they are out there then I strongly suggest you use the time and effort you have been expending on this futile war to <em>'''go and find them'''</em>. If you can not find any then drop it and move on.</p><p> I care not one iota about who did what to whom so please do not take this as an invitation to rehash accusations. Stripped of all the drama and crap the issue is simple. You do not have the sources to support what you want to say. You are being disruptive. One will not solve the other. Your disruptive behavior should not be allowed to continue. It is a detriment to the project. That is not to say that you are a detriment to the project. If you can put the goals of Misplaced Pages ahead of your own personal ideology then you can help shape the Encyclopedia. The end result sought is for your disruption to end. ] (]) 23:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Crap sources? When you make accusations like that I wonder about your objectivity here.
::::::These are reliable sources (meet the RS criteria). They represent the majority Russian view, but I understand that this is a minority view on the English wiki. However, they are not fringe. Simply trying to make sure they are properly presented in articles here is not pushing some "ideology."
::::::Consensus is not reached only by an RfC, although the RfC's closing stated that the sources are credible. The RfC, started by user Diannaa, also was not fair as it did not represent the dispute properly. There was a lot of discussion and editing going on after the RfC ended. -] (]) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::You are also overlooking the constant personal attacks and going around to different talk pages to advocate for like-minded users (see the 3RR report I filed for example). -] (]) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Also, how do you comment on what I said earlier:
::::::::"PBS added the text to the footnote. and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009."
:::::::So the users were not reverting text that I supposedly pushed into the article. Regarding the second text (sourced to Bird), it is not a Russian source and I did not even edit the article back in 2009. -] (]) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: I will say for the third time: I read the talk page history. I looked into the authors you want to use. I applied Misplaced Pages rules and policies as I understand them in an objective manner. One source was a <em>popular historian with no peer reviewed writings.</em> The other was <em>so far out on the fringe that even Misplaced Pages, with its BLP policy, unambiguously labeled him as a '''revisionist historian'''</em> The only qualified author you wanted to use was Yelena Senyavskaya who as far as I can tell is a lone voice in the wilderness. Even her, according to the talk page discussions, you wanted to use in an inappropriate manner. Just because my analysis is not what you want to hear does not mean it was not objective. It means that after assessing them I found them to be crap, particularly for use about such a contentious subject.</p><p>As to the accusations flying back and fourth I already said <em>I give not one iota about them.</em> Based on our exchanges it seems you do not understand <em>when I say I have done something I have done that thing. When I say I do not care about something I do not care about that thing</em> Your inability to grasp that tells me you either suffer from a lack of ability to comprehend what someone is saying to you or you are using an exceedingly juvenile debating tactic in am attempt to discredit.</p><p> As to your specific questions. The first is a quote from Yelena Senyavskaya which the RFC said required consensus to include, obviously consensus right now is not to include. The other one I have no opinion on as I have not looked at the source.</p><p>As to your third point. <em>Again,</em>I just do not care who did what. The point you raise is irrelevant to your behavior. What you fail to understand is even if you are right on one of the issues you raise it in no way excuses your disruptive behavior. If you continue acting the way you are now no one will care whether you are right or wrong and the one constructive edit you could have made is lost in all the disruption. If you concentrate on one good edit you would make a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. What you are doing now is, in my opinion, a net negative.Also, please do not attempt to again represent to others how I formed my opinions on these issues.] (]) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::The issue here is not Axell or Dyukov (Dyukov I agreed to remove even though he was RS). You constantly referring to them shows that don't know what you are talking about.
::::::::::Maybe if you don't care, you should not comment here... Your selective review of evidence and insults like "sources are crap" are disruptive.
::::::::::So it is ok to stalk users, make personal attacks, commit BLP violations just because you think the users doing that are right on a content dispute?
::::::::::Is it also ok for users to come into articles they never edited before, make false claims and reverts, and suddenly form a "new consensus."?
::::::::::As for Senyavskaya, no she is not alone. You simply overlook the other sources. -] (]) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Also, these diffs show that you have interacted with Volunteer Marek before, so you are not a neutral observer here. -] (]) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC){{outdent}}
:Wow! Did you really not read my opening statement where I said: {{tq|"I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors"}}? Hmmm I bet it is not a reading comprehension issue. Try addressing the issues I have brought up to you rather than trying to discredit my opinion. </p><p>The locus of the dispute is you have been continuously attempting to edit a controversial subject against consensus. This has lead to UNCIVIL acts on both sides. However, based on the conversations I have read much of the other editors UNCIVIL remarks stem from from frustration with your continuous ] behavior. At the minimum, as I and other have pointed out above, you come here with UNCLEAN hands on the UNCIVIL issue.</p><p>Attempting to address UNCIVIL behavior here is all but futile except in the most extreme cases. I chose to focus on your ] editing, which the source issue directly relates to. Whether it is source choice, NPOV wording or an argument over talk page editing you seem completely unable to recognize when consensus is against you. He said, she said ultimately makes no difference. You seem to think other editors' behavior excuses your own. It does not. Hence my not caring about it.</p><p>When no one agrees with you the wise man considers that <em>'''maybe he is wrong.'''</em> I have said what I have to say. I hope an admin will take a look at this but it has become a wall of text for which I share the blame. If you bring up an issue of substance I will address it. I am going to wait now for some more uninvolved editors to comment. We seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns in our conversation. ] (]) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::Well again you are not an uninvolved editor, so maybe you should not have posted walls of text accusing me and excusing violations of policy by others.
::Your unexpected aggressiveness against me shows that you are not neutral and commenting in good faith. I never interacted with you before and yet you know that I am some highly disruptive user so quickly...
::Advocating for other users, even when it is clear they have violated policies, is a common problem here. The same thing happened when I filed my last 3RR report, but that did not help the user being reported. -] (]) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::: I can read and I can understand what the rules are. It was not difficult to see the behavioral problem. Working with one editor on one article does not make me involved. All that claim does is show you try to deflect when you can not address the issues. The purpose of ANI is to solicit uninvolved opinion. That is what I gave you. I advocate for no one. Cheers. ] (]) 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Well simply stating your opinion, instead of throwing accusations and insults at me and excusing misconduct by others, would have been enough, if you were truly uninvolved and neutral. -] (]) 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Is there actually *anyone* on Misplaced Pages that you don't immediately start a fight with when they try to interact and discuss something with you? The list of users who are telling you to lay off and that you're in the wrong has greatly increased in the short time since you filed this AN/I "report", but somehow that's still not getting through.] (]) 03:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Who, Jbhunley? Like said, I never interacted with him, so his attacks were uncalled for. -] (]) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly this was many months ago when I was there. Surprised it's still going. But honestly I really don't have much to add.] (]) 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support''' topic bans on all editors active in this dispute. I am not a fan of the "block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" approach, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Regarding Volunteer Marek, this user has been nothing but a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improve an article, so a topic ban on him would greatly improve the editing environment. ] (]) 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::Dude, seriously? Still pursuing your little grudges from months ago? You obviously have not even bothered to read either the article or the discussion, just jumped in here in a pathetic attempt to get back to me for some criticism I at levied at you months ago. Who is this "anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improving the article" that I've thwarted, you're referring to? No-one (it can't be YMB29)? Point'em out please. Name'em. List'em. Anyone? Anyone? Buller? Didn't think so.] (]) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] topic ban for ]. Per everything I said above and based on the diffs I have looked fully into the edits YMB29 is complaining about being wrong were correct:
:#</p><p>
:#Yep the reviewer does not say his methods call into question the magnitude of the rapes as this quote seems to imply.
:#Removing the weasaly war time rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence." and replacing it with "The" does not violate ]
:#Albert Axell is not a by any accademic measure.
:#Saying that Re the rapes is unsupported. Saying some Russian historians dispute the rapes is supported.<br>
I see no point in continuing through the rest, I want to go to bed.</p><p>] and the others<small><small>(not going to list them VM is the one brought up by name in the sanction)</small></small> may have been UNCIVIL but I can not say I would have remained civil in the same situation. It would be great if we had a civility policy with teath but we do not. Topic banning all the other editors for responding to a ] editor is extreme. I am sure VM and the others can be a real pain in the ass but this is not the issue to topic ban them over. ] (]) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::Jbhunley, why must you misrepresent the dispute and accuse me of things I did not do? If you have real evidence against me, present it. Otherwise, you are simply advocating for Volunteer Marek.
::Again, your continuing attacks against me here is proof that you are not just a neutral editor commenting.
::Also, you are posting a "wall of text" again. -] (]) 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|YMB29}} Evidence? You mean other than the four diffs in my initial statement and my analysis of five of your diffs? Just what things did you not do? Try addressing the issues I have brought up rather than using ] tactics to attempt to discredit and redirect. I am supporting a topic ban because based on my reading of your history and your continued attempts to deflect any responsibility for your disruptive editing make me think you need a break from this topic area. PS yep I admitted to <em>sharing the responsibility for the wall of text '''with you'''</em>. Can you not even quote a conversation froman hour ago without cherrypicking? ] (]) 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Well again you are just continuing with attacks against me... This only further proves my point about your "neutrality" here.
:::::I have addressed most of your accusations here already, and pointed out that the fact that you continue to refer to Axell and Dyukov shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You are also bring up content dispute, and this page is not about that. -] (]) 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|YMB29}} You have done nothing to address what I brought up. I am not attacking you I am informing you of problematic behavior in the hope you can take aboard honest criticism and modify your behavior. What you continuously fail to get it that <em>'''your behavior in content disputes is not acceptable'''</em> you came here complaining about people following you and reverting you and acting in what you call an UNCIVIL manner (yes some was, not disputing that). I looked at the diffs <em>'''you brought here'''</em> and gave my opinion.<em>'''You brought up the dispute over Axell and Dyukov.'''</em> Your behavior in those disputes is relevant, your ] editing in those disputes <em>'''is relevant'''</em> I looked at the talk page <em>'''you brought up here'''</em> and I found that you were at least as UNCIVIL as the other editors and I supplied the diffs to back it up.</p><p> You can not come to ANI and say people are being mean to you and not expect people to look at why they did the things you said was mean and whether the edits you claim were bad actually were. I showed in this section 5 that were not. I focused on your behavior in the content disputes because, in the sections I read, <em>'''you are more UNCIVIL than they are.'''</em> cf calling ] a . You really think that was CIVIL? As I have told you now *four* times all the he said she said crap does not matter. If there was something terrible done by the other users you have buried it in a bunch of diffs of '''content edits''' you are complaining about having reverted and using as evidence of '''bad behavior'''. Wait are you now saying those were <em>only content issues and not what this ANI is about</em>? </p><p>Maybe if you will not take my other advice you will take this bit:<em>'''make sure the evidence you present does not convict you.'''</em> As you are not listening I am done trying to explain things to you. I will however address my Support for your topic ban in this thread where appropriate. Any other interaction seems futile. Good night.] (]) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Another wall of text... I am not going to reply to your dubious accusations again.
:::::::The fact that you commented here more than Volunteer Marek himself speaks for itself. -] (]) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban for ] from this issue. Currently he is again repeating the same behaviour that ] has identified at my talkpage. ] ] 07:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
<small><small>:{{ping|Buckshot06}}Actually I am ]. Did not realize there was an actual ] ooppss. Looks like they have not been active since 2005 though. ] (]) 14:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)</small></small>
:What behavior are you talking about? JBH is just making disruptive accusations here; the fact that this is my first interaction with him and he already posted so much against me here should tell you something...
:I simply provided evidence of what was going on in the Berlin article on your page, since you were the admin who was last involved in the article. I added the diffs to make it clear. If you did not want to look at the issue and did not want any more comments on your talk page, you should have told me.
:Did you even look at the evidence here and what I added to your talk page? -] (]) 08:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, I went back through the talkpage, and then scanned your recent contributions to find this discussion. I read your original note on this page, and then the comments that followed. I would again emphasise that it is much better to debate the '''issue''' rather than arguing about the '''users'''. To illustrate, I would expect a user sincerely interested in advancing the debate over mass rape in Germany at the end of World War II to be comparing arguments from different scholarly sources based upon their relative credibility. Such comparison of reliable sources would tend to indicate to me that the user concerned was truly engaged in improving the encyclopedia. Kind regards ] ] 08:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Buckshot06}} I was and am willing to discuss the content issues on the talk pages and even offered dispute resolution, which others were not interested in (see this reply).
:::However, this is the ANI, so the discussion here can't be about content dispute. The reason I went here is the constant personal attacks by a group of users and them following me to other articles that I have edited. Volunteer Marek is only one of the users who is doing that. There is much more evidence for the other users (including me being referred to as a "Stalinist Neo-Nazi").
:::On the talk page of the article in question I always try to focus on the content, and it is the users I am talking about who focus on me rather than discussing the content (for example this section was created just to accuse me of something). -] (]) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::So I don't understand why you support a topic ban for me if I am doing exactly what you are saying on the talk page. -] (]) 13:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Nobody called you a "Stalinist Neo-Nazi". Stop making stuff up.] (]) 14:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::See here. I was the last person he talked to before posting that. -] (]) 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Like I said, nobody called you a "Stalnist Neo-Nazi". You're making stuff up.] (]) 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You are ignoring the obvious again and continuing with accusations even here... It was definitely directed at me. I can post more proof of this if required. -] (]) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, maybe if you post on the ] that users should comment on the content only and use dispute resolution if required (no personal attacks and disruptive reverts), and everyone agrees, this matter can be resolved. -] (]) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I am an involved editor. If I were not I would suggest that ] be topic banned from editing any of the World War II Eastern Front articles, or at the very least reduced to a 1RR on the same range of articles. This whole ANI is full of the reasons why this would be useful for the project. The way this ANI is mushrooming with unnecessary long comments and repeated replies to distort the points being made. As a microcosm of the problem just look at the two postings by ] directly above (16:23 and 15:52, 13 February). There is no accusation in the statement '{{green|Like I said, nobody called you a "Stalnist Neo-Nazi"}}' (made by ]), ] reply '{{green|You are ignoring the obvious again and continuing with accusations even here}}' -- is just a tenacious retort to continue a thread that already should have ended. In the comment to ] that '{{green|"(no personal attacks and disruptive reverts), and everyone agrees, this matter can be resolved."}}' ] is being disingenuous. The discussions over changes to the ] page went on for more than six months and in the end ] was able to force through changes for which there was no census by simply wearing out the opposition. If ] is true to form then there will be reply to this posting which is either obfuscation or disingenuous or both, as I have yet to see an example of where ] is willing to let someone else have the last word. -- ] (]) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban''' under ] per PBS. This farce has gone on long enough. ] — ] 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:I should note that ] blocked YMB29 for a week, and I have just extended that block to a month. Regards ] ] 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban for User:YMB29''' as set out at ] I've checked a couple of the sources YMB29 was using against what they were adding. In both cases YMB29 was clearly misrepresenting the source to further their views. This is entirely unacceptable, and a topic ban is in order - at minimum. ] (]) 02:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support topic ban'''. While I appreciate that being blocked for a month will prevent disruption for that period of time, and that blocks and bans are not intended to be inherently punitive, YMB29 has already demonstrated patience enough to ride things out, then begin tendentious, disruptive editing from scratch. We're not dealing with someone who needs a cooling off period, or demonstrates any willingness to back down and learn from prior BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I've been at the receiving end of the user's aspersions and can confidently say that we're dealing with a POV warrior who's really ]. I've even staved off from commenting on this ANI as YMB29 spurts walls of text for every comment made by another editor, all of which add up to "This is a cabal of non-neutral editors harassing and bullying me because I'm right and they're wrong (and they know it!)". This editor is incapable of working collaboratively with anyone who doesn't concede to their POV in relation to Soviet WWII history and should simply not be allowed to edit in this area at the least. I've seldom encountered an editor this obnoxious and immovable, and that's saying a lot. S/he has managed to exhaust and alienate good editors... who may possibly never edit again as a result. For the sake of the project, I'm all for a full topic ban. --] (]) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

{{user|YMB29}} is continuing to misrepresent sources on their talk page and not take responsibility for material they added. As such, I have extended the block duration to indefinite as this behaviour implies that they will continue their disruptive conduct when the time-limited block expires. Of course, indefinite isn't permanent. Other admins are very welcome to review the block - YMB29 has lodged an appeal. ] (]) 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support block by Nick-D'''. YMB29 was caught with misrepresenting sources. This is serious. It means that no one can trust his edits. I quickly checked and fixed his contributions in several pages, and I do not think that YMB29 made too much damage. Nick-D checked only English language source. Speaking about Russian language sources which were cherry-picked by YMB29, some of their authors were also accused of fabricating or inventing non-existing sources by other Russian historians , so I am not surprised that YMB29 did something similar here. I think main problem with YMB29 is that he simply does not want to discuss anything in a good faith. This should be clear from his discussion on his talk page with Nick-D. There are many other examples. YMB29 can edit war to keep certain content in articles, but argue it was not him who initially included this text. He can forge comments by another contributor and claim that nothing happened . And he always blames others of stalking, tag-teaming and even ... misrepresenting sources (in the end of ). Well, based on the discussion above, it is obvious that checking his edits in the project would be something very much reasonable. ] (]) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Some more observations -- ] (]) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)}}
Some of the affected articles
*]
*]
*]

"Get your retaliation in first" - (])
*] 22 Dec. 2014
*] 3 Feb. 2015

There are telling exchanges in both of these 3RRs.

The first point is that they were brought by YMB29, it seems that to defend his/her position, if the opponent (I use that word deliberately as YMB29 treats Misplaced Pages as a battle ground), does not keep to the 3RR rule, then YMB29 uses the process to silence an opponent. This in itself is a positive use of the Misplaced Pages rules, but when, as is pointed out by MiGR25 in the MiGR25 report:

{{collapse top|YMB29 uses tenacious editing techiques}}

:Comments:

::"There was no attempt to initiate any discussion"
::There was a dissucsion:] yet, you still continuing to widespreed the contested source to the webpages: ], ]; ] without any acknowledge to the consensus of an ] just because (you) ]

:*<p style="line-height:100%; width:"><span style="font-size:84%; line-height: "><font color="carmine red">YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. ] (]) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC) </font> </span> </p>

:*<p style="line-height:100%; width:"><span style="font-size:84%; line-height: "><font color="carmine red"> ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." ] (]) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) </font> </span> </p>

:*<p style="line-height:100%; width:"><span style="font-size:84%; line-height: "><font color="carmine red">I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (])</font> </span> </p>

:'''So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, ] editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.”''' Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to ], you’re still at it using the same tired m.o.

:It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. '''"''Outlasting''" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary.''' Another suggestion would be to read ], an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info.

:] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

::Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article, where you did not even participate, does not count as an attempt at discussion on your part.
::For a completely new user, you sure seem to know a lot about my history... -] (]) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::The above is also mostly a copy-paste from a post on a talk page made in May. -] (]) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
then it becomes part of a strategy where the alternative is to out-wait editors who do not edit war.
When MiGR25 points out that YMB29 uses tenacious editing techiques to out-wait those who do not edit-war, YMB29 simply dismisses MiGR25 observation as "Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article". As someone involved in that dispute I know nothing has changed.

{{collapse top|In the Sayerslle report there is a analysis of the history of edits to the article ]}}

*I've looked over the article history, and there really only seems to be one long term edit warrior:
:*{{contribs|80.117.117.225|80.117.117.225}} removes the text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|MiGR25}} removes the text .

:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|MiGR25}} removes the text .

:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|MiGR25}} removes the text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|Nug}} removes the text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|Volunteer Marek}} removes text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|Iryna Harpy}} removes the text .
:*<small>Page protected.</small>
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*<small>a series of minor edits</small>
:*{{u|My very best wishes}} removes the text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|Sayerslle}} removes the text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|Sayerslle}} removes the text .
:*{{u|YMB29}} reverts
:*{{u|Sayerslle}} and {{u|My very best wishes}} remove the text .
*So by the looks of it, YMB29 has reverted no less than 6 editors. <small>Note, I've only looked at the edits with >500 bytes changed, and haven't read the contents of the material added/removed.</small> ] <small>]</small> 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Stickee}} So what is your point? This is since October. I undid removals of text that were done without any sort of consensus.
::MiGR25 was a "new" user whose sole purpose was to revert; he was blocked for edit warring on this page. Most of the other users have a history of edit warring in the EE topic area and harassing others. -] (]) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

So here we have the thee techniqies that YMB29 has been employing for what is now well over a year
*Be tenacious on the talk page (there is over 300k of discussion in the archives of ] (starting with the section ])) 300k+ all over one sentences and a couple of footnotes in the article!
*Be tenacious with editing -- as shown on in the collapse box the Sayerslle report
*"Get your retaliation in first" (as shown by the two 3RRArchives and this ANI all of which were initiated by YMB29)

This behaviour has not been against any one editor or group of editors, but against many and as can be seen is a huge time sink for everyone involved. It is telling that not one editor responding to this ANI has given any support for either YMB29's behaviour or the content YMB29 has been forcing into articles. -- ] (]) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


'''Comment''' - As far as the Russian language sources go, I supported YMB29's contributions to the articles in question. Oleg Rzheshevsky and Yelena Senyavskaya are respected and well credentialed scholars, and for historical events in which Russia was involved it only makes sense to include the research of leading Russian historians. Consistently the individuals who opposed these sources were just complaining about how they contradicted the views of non-Russian historians, but as Senyavskaya noted herself, most historians in Russia do dispute the occurrence of "mass" rapes by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War, and I suppose if Misplaced Pages were more biased in favor of Russian-language sources and less biased in favor of English-biased sources, then in that case the same users would find it equally strange and shocking to include English-language sources asserting that mass rapes did occur. One of the reasons other users are saying that YMB29 should be banned is POV-pushing, but this is a sort of Anglophone narrowmindedness. Users are insisting that English-speaking historians somehow know more about what Russian soldiers did in World War II than Russian-speaking historians do. Try as I might, I couldn't think of any reason why Misplaced Pages should not represent the views held by most Russian historians on an issue directly linked to their own country's history. Trying to exclude their opinions because they are different from what English-language speakers are used to hearing is POV pushing.

Having said that, I was a bit embarrassed to have YMB29 as an ally. It was partly because of his nonstop personal attacks on other users, which were extremely unacceptable and uncalled for, that I was hesitant to back his position too strongly. There were also some legitimate concerns raised about whether YMB29 was cherry-picking quotes from English-language sources, though to accuse him of misrepresenting these sources completely is an accusation that goes too far. The specific information cited to Bird and Roberts did say what YMB29 said that they stated, but it's also true that the specific parts which were inserted into the articles did not reflect the tone of the sources as a whole. It was cherry-picking to some degree, but not dishonesty.

It's possible that either some form of topic ban or some restrictions on reverting may be the right course of action to take. One way or another though, the least I can say is that an indefinite ban is not appropriate. Most of YMB29's edits were constructive and I think that his indefinite ban ought to be reduced back to one month. However, whatever other penalties are applied to him after that is a matter that I'll leave to others to discuss.] (]) 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*Unfortunately, as a Russian-speaking and educated user, I can not agree with this. do not represent anything accepted by majority of real Russian historians. Science is the same in Russia and in other countries. These are views by several nationalist/revisionist historians, which were cherry-picked by YMB29. These revisionist historians, for example Senyavskaya or , were criticized for fabrications and ] (no less) by other Russian historians, such as ] (for example or ). Unfortunately, these revisionist historians (e.g. ]) were placed "in charge" of History by the Putin's administration . Thinking that majority of real historians in Russia share these ridiculous views is nonsense and just another misrepresentation by YMB29. ] (]) 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Well, we need to distinguish between the viewpoints of Misplaced Pages users and the viewpoints of reliable sources. We do have available to us a reliable source by a leading scholar, Senyavskaya, who says unambiguously that most Russian historians dispute the occurrence of "mass" rapes at the end of the Second World War. By contrast, we have no reliable source saying that a majority of Russian historians disagree with Senyavskaya's views. The idea that her views are fringe is solely the view of Misplaced Pages users, and not of the sources which have been presented. Mentioning Medinsky is not relevant since no one ever tried to cite him, and using one claim on one single issue from the blog of an amateur historian like Solonin does not somehow discredit Senyavskaya's entire corpus of work. It's true that not all of YMB29's sources were included in the best possible manner and some legitimate concerns were raised about phrasing, and obviously I don't condone YMB29's uncivil behavior. However, no one has proven any deliberate dishonesty on the part of YMB29, and no valid, policy-based reason has yet been presented by any user to exclude the views of Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya from the relevant articles.] (]) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Relevant WP guideline is ] where these authors belong. There is no doubt (per vast majority of RS) that mass rapes in Germany indeed had happened. Authors who openly deny this belong to WP:FRINGE (for example, Senyavskaya has declared these rapes to be a "myth" by the Goebbels and Western propaganda). We do not use people involved in ] as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should cite Soviet crimes deniers (such as Senyavskaya and some others) only in pages about themselves, propaganda or pseudoscience, rather than in pages about actual events. This is precisely the reason why YMB29 has a trouble around here: he promotes works by fringe authors, but misleadingly presents their views as a legitimate scientific discourse. For example, we are not going to quote views by ] as a legitimate scientific discourse. ] (]) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::P.S. And no, I believe that Medinsky is relevant. , for example that "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "deserves a monument." and "The U.S.S.R. never occupied the Baltic states, it just "incorporated" them.". This is precisely what YMB29 promotes here: he removes information about war crimes by the Soviet military because he believes that Baltic States were not occupied by the Soviet Union , and that is ]. We do not need contributors who edit war to promote fringe views in WP. ] (]) 03:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|CurtisNaito}}, where and how on earth did you come to the conclusion that {{tq|"Oleg Rzheshevsky and Yelena Senyavskaya are respected and well credentialed scholars."}} Have you actually read through this discussion or the relevant articles? Senyavskaya, alone, has been criticised by Russian peers for essentially basing major conclusions drawn in her research based on forgery she could not have taken seriously if she were an honest, impartial historian. Her work has been questioned in no uncertain terms, and determined to be revisionist agenda driven! --] (]) 06:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I read through all the talk page discussion, and plenty of sources were presented demonstrating that Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya were historians with credentials and respectable publications. It's true that one source of dubiously reliability, put forward by an amateur historian with no credentials comparable to Senyavskaya's, did suggest that Senyavskaya may have misused one document, but that does not automatically invalidate all the research Senyavskaya has done on the subject. Other users have put forward their view that Senyavskaya is an unreliable revisionist, but not a single reliable source has been put forward by anyone to prove this point. Whatever other flaws he had, one had to respect YMB29 for understanding that Misplaced Pages should be based principally off reliable sources and not the opinion of users. He proved with reliable sources that the scholars he was citing were reputable, in sharp contrast with other users who believed that they could dismiss Senyavskaya as a dishonest revisionist without actually bothering to present any reliable sources proving this accusation.] (]) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Do you actually read Russian? Have you checked the texts? I find it a little strange that you're referring to Senyavskaya as a he when she's a 'she' (which you would have understood without thinking twice if you knew Russian). Therefore, I have to ask myself whether you have any idea of who the 'amateur' blogger is, or the depth of that which he revealed about her research. He's not an amateur historian of any description. If you bother to check into his credentials, you'll find that he is considered an expert on WWII Soviet military history, is published (and peer reviewed). Please don't just mimic what YMB29 claims just because you've decided to pick a side and stick with it. What is on the curriculum for state-sponsored scholars is, as has already been pointed out to you, ]. It isn't a matter of what Russian historians are saying about themselves, nor what Anglophone sources say: other language sources agree with the Anglophone sources (or, to be more precise, Anglophone sources are in agreement with other language sources regarding the research). If you care to go to one of the other language Wikipedias, you won't find the FRINGE Russian theories represented there. Please don't try to treat the matter as a court of law where 'both' sides (they're more than one side involved) get to have their hearing: i.e., that's known as ]. --] (]) 09:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::, the criterion of WP:FRINGE is very simple. There is absolutely no doubt (per vast majority of RS) that mass rapes in Germany by the Soviet Army indeed had happened. However, Senyavskaya has declared these rapes to be a "myth" by the Goebbels and Western propaganda. That denial qualifies her work about Soviet rapes in Germany as "fringe". ] (]) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I never referred to Senyavskaya as a "he", and incidentally I did check some of the other language Wikipedias and found that Senyavskaya's views on rapes by Soviet forces are cited in several articles on both French and Spanish Misplaced Pages. But at any rate, the point I'm trying to make is that YMB29 had reliable sources stating that the historians he was citing were reliable and that their views were not fringe. Those who trying to remove Senyavskaya did nothing more than repeatedly insist that her views were fringe without bothering to take the time to find even a single reliable source saying so. It should be noted that when it came to the sourcing which was used during the talk page discussion, YMB29 by and large had the sources on his side, whereas most others had only their strong personal opinions to back up what they said.] (]) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Please see above why her work is fringe. There were numerous discussions by multiple participants who explained to YMB29 why his sources or the way he is using them were inappropriate, for example , , and (one could easily provide 10 more links to similar discussions), but he did not get it. ] (]) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I already read those discussions. As I said, the problem was that those who disagreed with YMB29 relied either heavy or entirely on their own personal opinions, whereas YMB29 cited reliable sources which proved Senyavskaya's credibility and also suggested that her viewpoint is not fringe in Russia. After YMB29 provided a reliable source saying that Senyavskaya's views were not fringe, both I and YMB29 repeatedly asked other users to provide a source contradicting it as a counterpoint. But, again and again, those who disagreed with YMB29 just kept on ignoring the question and continued to assert their own opinions without corroborating sources. The only reason why I took YMB29's side was because when he was asked to provide sources to back up his view, he did. Everyone else who was asked to do the same just ignored the question.] (]) 17:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::One can not be sure that any sources by YMB29 were reliable because none of them was decided to be reliable on WP:RS noticeboard. You can not tell that 10 independent contributors, who all happen to strongly disagree with YMB29, were wrong. YMB29 acted against WP:CONSENSUS for years and . I can not speak for others, and I did not read all Russian language sources by YMB29, but those I read were fringe propaganda pieces, as also noted by experts . I did spent some time trying to explain this to YMB29 ,, but he did not listen, just as in all other discussions with other contributors (see above). ] (]) 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== User:Uniquark9 repeatedly deleting content and refusing to engage in constructive discussion on talk page, telling another user to edit war ==

User:Uniquark9 has repeatedly deleted content that he doesn't like from the articles ] and ], often giving no reason at all or just saying in the edit summary that he is reversing my edits without giving a reason why. He deleted multiple sentences on different issues/topics.

{{u|Uniquark9}} {{u|Philg88}} {{u|Nlu}}



Note that User:Uniquark9 is not actually disputing the content itself. He isn't challenging it or its factual veracity (I provided sources for the content on the talk page at ]. He just doesn't like it so he blatantly deletes it repeatedly. Most of the time on these two articles he gave no edit summaries or no explanation for his deletions. He just says things like "Restoring to a version before Rajmaan's edits."

User:Uniquark9 instead of discussing the content deletion, went to another Mongolian user and . In other words he is telling another editor to help him engage in an edit war with me based on ethnicity.

After I opened on the discussion on the talk page, Uniquark9 only addressed one of the sentences he deleted, provided no source for his claim, and then totally disappeared from the discussion. He totally ignored the other sentences he deleted and refused to talk about them. He hasn't addressed anything else he deleted or justified the deletions, he didn't address any of the sources I provided on the talk page which justified keeping the content.

He also has issues with civility and uses words like "bullshit" and "bullshitting" like on ].

He is refusing to engage in discussion and reach a consensus and instead is resorting to edit warring and trying to promote an ethnic nationalist based edit war to get what he wants. This is not about a content dispute, this is a behavioral issue. I am trying to get him to address the content dispute on the talk page and he is ignoring it. We need a third party admin to make all the relevant users engage in the discussion on the talk page and make sure it proceeds in a civil manner.] (]) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:Uniquark9 has repeatedly engaged in edit wars at ] and ]. He was blocked in December for edit warring and using a sock in an edit war. He frequently blanks to hide all the warnings and complaints about his disruptive editing.
:A friend of Uniquark9, ], engages in similar behavior. They also communicate in a foreign language, possibly coordinating edit wars. Ceithe has been in an extended edit war recently at . He also his talk page to remove complaints and warnings, though some are still ]. Ceithe has his anti-Chinese attitude. He repeatedly calls other users "vandals," currently because they are adding sourced content that he doesn't like (see ] and ). He has been repeatedly asked to cease his disruptive editing and to familiarize himself with WP norms and practices, yet he continues with edit warring and abusive comments towards other editors. ] (]) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the merits of the textual edits, but I do concur on the Uniquark9 as being uncivil based on ethnic origin, as well as unwilling to discuss and/or consider any other views. I did not personally take action because I want clearly-uninvolved administrator(s) to look at the situation (given that I've collaborated with Rajmaan on a number of articles). --] (]) 05:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:In my interactions with Uniquark9 on ], and also ], I've found that they can do excellent research, and are willing to compromise up to a point. However, I agree that they also are frequently are disruptive and prone to edit warring. I do want to make it clear that one series of reverts exchanged between myself and Uniqark9 just barely went over 3RR, but I consider myself as edit warring since I could have defused things earlier before racking up reverts. Finally, as Laszlo Panaflex brings up, editor Ceithe, a frequent collaborator with Uniquark9, is also disruptive. I've found them more difficult to work with and very inflexible, and they take a much more hostile, insulting, and patronizing tone to those who disagree with them.--] (] &#124; <small>]</small>) 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:Forgot to mention this in my comment: Rajmaan above has confirmed what I thought, which is that there is some collusion between Uniquark9 and Ceithe to enforce a certain point of view here on Misplaced Pages. {{U|Evecurid}} I think is part of this as well, though I've found them to be far more reasonable and easier to collaborate with.--] (] &#124; <small>]</small>) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:I haven't researched whether Uniquark9 or Ceithe do excellent research. I do see that Uniquark9 is communicating with some other editors in a foreign language, and is frequently blanking English content, both templates and reasoned discussion, from his or her talk page. Since the warnings have been going on and have been repeatedly deleted, I have to '''Support a block'''. ] (]) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*Please see my comments . ]<sup>♦]</sup> 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::Um... could you explain how those comments about a retired editor are applicable here? Is the preventive/punitive comment what you are referring to? There have clearly been 3RR violations here, as well as repeated disruptive behavior. Whether a block is preventive/punitive is inapposite as well. Not seeing the connection. ] (]) 17:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{tping|Laszlo Panaflex}} Sorry about that—it's an unrelated matter that I inadvertently confused with this one. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Could I also bring up {{u|Toguchar}} on this report as well? Their behavior and attitude is very similar to that of Uniquark9 and Ceithe (edit warring, disruptive and abrasive attitude, communicating in a foreign language, blanking warnings and notices from their talk page, etc.).--] (] &#124; <small>]</small>) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

::::Uniquark9 deleted the . I also summoned him here using the User Link template at the beginning and he hasn't responded to any of it] (]) 05:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::He/she's not required to respond, although I tend to think it's in his/her interest to do so. But he/she doesn't have to. --] (]) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Problems on ']' ==

For at least three years (!), someone using different IPs has been persistently re-adding a section that claims ] film predicted the Norwegian terror attacks of 2011.

Example diff ; see also the Talk page ].

Removal gets reverted within hours, but I'm not a regular Wiki contributor, so felt it worth flagging up here. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: It sounds like a good number of regular editors have this article on their Watchlist so they can revert the edits when they occur. With the changes being done by different IPs sporadically over time, it's impossible to pro-actively prevent these occurrences. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*Yeah, what Liz says. It's not worth protecting for since it's not that frequent, and the IPs keep changing. Thanks for reverting and for notifying, though: your continued vigilance is appreciated. ] (]) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
* FYI this has continued to happen but now ] has protected it for a week. Presumably there is no ] issue in continuing to remove/revert this section? ] (]) 13:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
**It doesn't matter because there's no point in blocking dynamic/hopping IPs. Blocks are typically useless. ] (]) 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
**It's disruption, not clear-cut vandalism, so please follow normal edit warring guidelines. I have protected for a week and will protect again for a longer period if the disruption resumes when the protection wears off. Sorry you will not be able to edit the article for a while. -- ] (]) 16:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Just a thought, this might be a situation where pending changes protection is a good option.] (]) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Pending changes bleeeeeeh. ] (]) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at ] (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to at ], this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, ] (]) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. ] (]) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. ] (]) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It should run for the 30 days. I see the original proposer, as an ] editor, has taken it upon himself to close this prematurely and with his preferred outcome; this should be reverted. ] (]) 07:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

==Trabant1963==
{{user|Trabant1963}} "fixes" articles into pro-Russian politics way without edit summaries and no discussions. Repeatedly warned. Recently blanked his talk page and merrily continues his disruptive editing. -M.Altenmann ] 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Diannaa}} has reverted one series of edits--but I'm not sure what we're doing here, what the big Incident is. Can we get examples, with explanations? And have you discussed this with the user? What I see are talk page edits like . ] (]) 04:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:What more do you want? The user plainly refuses to discuss the issue and merely deletes referenced information about Russian military bases (). -M.Altenmann ] 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::The user is clearly NOTHERE and keeps hammering away at being disruptive on articles and on talk pages: starting new sections on talk pages like + ; constantly returning to articles in order to be ] (such as the article), but ensuring that s/he stays under the radar for edit warring. Having to revert them, or having other editors being dragged into sinking their energy into bothering to explain why their 'improvements' and suggestions are not acceptable seems to be a game with the user. Supercilious responses in Russian - such as - are hardly indicative of a user with a 'collaborative project' mentality. It's going to be a waste of everyone's time taking this to the ANI again when all the evidence of slow edit warring and no intention to discuss the content is evidenced by their contribution history. I've just had to revert after Diannaa's last revert on ] was reverted by the user . --] (]) 02:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Conduct of User:Denisarona ==

] has changed the redirection of the article ] from the established ] to ]. All attempts to restore to the established version were reverted by user Denisarona. At the same time, he refuses to engage the issue on the talk page of the article in question, and instead posts notifications on my talk page despite they being the person on which the burden of evidence falls. Acting in good faith, on the 26 of November 2014. The appeal was ignored and on the 13th of December 2014 (also please note that he also deleted another comment from ], and his history of engagements with other users ). I kindly ask for the article ] to be reverted to the established version (redirect to article ]) and for user Denisarena to be warned and prohibited from touching the article for a set period of time. Thank you. 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~ <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have reverted the target to ], which does appear to be correct, but I see back and forth on this since at least September 2012. Since I can't find an article talk page discussion and am stuck at work with limited time, pinging {{U|Denisarona}} to come and discuss here; it looks like a good-faith misunderstanding that's turned into a slow-motion edit war. ] (]) 13:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::I agree that it might be a good-faith misunderstanding. Otherwise, I couldn't see how one would overlook the fact that this is a very sensitive issue (cf. ], ], ], ]). I'm pretty sure, for instance, that nobody would even think about solving the ] just with a click of the mouse. 14:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~ <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{ping|Yngvadottir}} your ping failed due to typo. Pinging {{ping|Denisarona}} ] (]) 15:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Denisarona has a history stretching over many years of reverting people's edits without explanation. ] (]) 19:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:The original redirect was to ] until 20 July 2014, when ] changed it to a disambiguation page and subsequently to ]. I then redirected it again to ] because it refers to an ethnic group and not a geographical or historical region, as stated in the introduction to the ] article:-
::''Moldovans (in Moldovan/Romanian moldoveni pronounced ;) are the largest population group of Republic of Moldova (75.8% of the population), and a significant minority in Ukraine, and Russia. Under the variant Moldavians, the term may also be used to refer to all inhabitants of the territory of historical Principality of Moldavia, currently divided among Romania (47.5%), Moldova (30.5%) and Ukraine (22%), regardless of ethnic identity. In the Romanian part of the historical region, term moldovenean (pl. moldoveni) is widely used as a cultural-geographical self-designation by people who otherwise self-identify as ethnic Romanians.''
:This seems more logical (e.g. The article about Italians does not redirect to Italy, the article about Irish people does not redirect to Ireland). If I use an encyclopedia to learn about an ethnic group, I don't go to the geographical location.
::The comments of ] don't deserve a response. See ].
Regards ] (]) 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for responding. The series of reverts would have been easier to understand with edit summaries. As a matter of fact, I think what you quote supports ] as the better redirect target: "Under the variant Moldavians, the term may also be used to refer to all inhabitants of the territory of historical Principality of Moldavia". But a hatnote of the form "Moldavians redirects here; for other usages see ]" is indicated. Would you agree to that solution, in view of the disputes linked to above by 85.122.25.236. Please don't dismiss the concerns of 200.83.101.199 just because they are (also) an unregistered editor; if you read that "abuse" page you will see they are not under any sanctions. ] (]) 19:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

::::I have no problem with your first suggestion. I have no comment on your second suggestion. Up to now I have spent 98% of my time on Misplaced Pages looking for and reverting vandalism. I will now re-think that idea. ] (]) 05:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Denisarona}} There is already a hatnote of the "see also ]" type, so I have posted at ] asking whether people agree it's a good idea to add "and ]"&nbsp;... and whether anyone knows how! I hate to think you will quit vandal-fighting because of this disagreement. But please do start using descriptive edit summaries - it does wonders to reduce misunderstandings - and please don't revert an edit substantially because it was by an unregistered editor. I've so frequently seen IPs quietly fixing things, most of us started as IPs, and there are regrettably innumerable registered vandals at any one time, that even if you disagree as many do with the policy of allowing IP editors, it doesn't make sense to assume they're all bad. ] (]) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Yngvadottir}} As I already said, I have no problem with your proposal for the Moldavians/Moldovans articles. In the past I have used edit summaries to explain various edits / changes / reverts for reasons not connected to vandalism. I didn't and don't disagree with allowing IP editors. I didn't target IP editors when reverting vandalism. I have welcomed IP editors who have reverted vandalism. However, enough is enough. ] (]) 07:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

== Disruptive edits on my talk page ==

*{{userlinks|EChastain}}
*{{pagelinks|User talk:Ivanvector}}

I have politely this user, per ], to stop posting comments on my talk page about their misunderstanding of the ], but the user insists on spamming my page ( ) with quotes from the guideline. Requesting that this user be topic-banned from my talk page. I am ''not'' requesting an interaction ban; our discussions have been otherwise productive. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Make that asked ] (]) 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

, actually. Note that these diffs aren't in order. ] (]) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:I want to add that this user also took a swipe at {{ping|Rationalobserver}} without providing any evidence. - ] (]) 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

* I've that supposedly shows my off-wiki activities, but they refuse to answer. ] (]) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

*The dispute stems from where {{u|Ivanvector}} hatted a discussion on his talk page and copied it to the talk page of the redirect under discussion. {{u|EChastain}} apparently viewed this as a violation of ] even though Ivanvector did not edit any of the comments. Ivanvector was well within his rights to hat the discussion on his talk page and move it to a more appropriate venue. He even noted that the discussion started elsewhere before it was copied to its ]. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 21:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it would've been best if Ivanvector ''only'' hatted the discussion at Ivanvector's own talkpage. Moving it to another place, seems to have caused the dispute. ] (]) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:Thanks, GoodDay. {{u|Ivanvector}} moved my comments, without notifying me, to another talk page where I was deliberately avoiding getting involved. The disruption occurred because I was trying to post my objections to his page and kept getting edit conflicts, unaware I was disrupting. For that I apologise, and I'm most happy to oblige by never posting on your talk page again. ] (]) 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

==Shani Shingnapur Edit==
{{archive top|Try posting on ]. ANI is not meant for content related issues. --] <small>(])</small> 13:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)}}
Dear Indian and particularly orthodox editors, i would like to bring your attention to Shani Shinganapur article please don't add biased and discrepant information about Shani Dev, Shani Dev is known as the God of Justice in Hinduism but the content almost proves him to be a punisher deity which is not true in all contexts.
] (]) 11:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*Please work it out on the article talk page with the other users. Thanks! ]<sub>]</sub> 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== WordSeventeen and ]/] ==


{{user|WordSeventeen}}

WordSeventeen has a pattern of adding references that are trivial mentions and/or from unreliable sources to articles that have been PROD'ed or AFD'd. For example , the user added such references then stated that the article passed ]. Similarly the user will vote keep at AFD's such as based on sources with other issues such as lack of independence.

This editing shows a misinterpretation (assuming good faith) of ] and ]. I have tried to engage and with no response. When I took it to WordSeventeen's user page , I was accused of harassment. I can accept that someone may have a very loose interpretation of ], but this goes beyond interpretation into willful disregard: the user dePRODed the article by adding this single , which is a blurb on the site of the web designer that developed Berry Town's website (which is now defunct). This is so far from ] that it begs the question what the user's agenda is, particular given that WordSeventeen appears to have been around for a while.

Since I haven't been able to elicit a response I can't say what the rationale for this behavior is, but I can surmise from the user's responses to questions from other editors that it comes down to of what an RS is. I don't think that argument flies anymore, WordSeventeen doesn't seem to be evolving in their understanding of guidelines. Since I have been accused of harassment I have brought this to ANI for community discussion. I request someone explain to this user what constitutes a ] and what is required for a subject to pass ]. ] (]) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

* I see what you mean but that Berry Town link was over a week ago and you have made your position clear to him. If there hasn't been any issue since you posted on his page maybe we should allow him time to change. He need not state agreement with you but should, as you say, evolve, to a better place. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|JodyB}} is from yesterday, on the article ]. Check out those sources and the amount of coverage on this individual in them... ] (]) 14:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Copyrighted material added to ] ==

From the ] article, I have removed a couple of instances of what seemed to me as definite copy-pastes:
* by ] ()
* by ] ()
* by ] ()
* by ] ()
--] (]) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:He had copy-pasted copyright material from news articles into his sandbox, which I have now deleted. Articles he has created use foreign-language sources but spot checks do not reveal any obvious copyvio issues. I have placed a warning on his talk page. -- ] (]) 17:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

== Tendentious COI editing and socking at Christ Myth Theory ==

*{{userlinks|Renejs}}
*{{userlinks|GMarxx}}

Because ANI threads about this article invariably turn into content disputes instead of focusing on behavior: If anyone tries to treat this as a content dispute or turn it into one (regardless of the direction they take it in), I will ignore their input as either in bad-faith or ], and I recommend others do likewise. If you wish to defend the behavior of these two accounts on their own merits, I will acknowledge what you have to say, but if you do so for content-based reasons, you will be ignored. Insinuations about editors' personal beliefs that lack behavioral evidence will be treated as ]. '''This is about editor behavior, not article content nor personal beliefs.'''

Renejs is ], an author focused on the ] (what his position is on the matter is irrelevant), and a ] dedicated to promoting the views he writes about. His research is self-published, and the consensus at ] is that it ultimately is not worth including. In response to the consensus that we remove the material about his research from the article, he suggested that we on ]. Obviously, he is here with a ] to ], and ] to build a neutral encyclopedia. What he is here to promote does not matter, it is that he is here to promote it, and how he chooses to do so.

Despite ], ], and so on being cited and explained repeatedly, and ], Renejs , simply because he ]. Regardless of what his views are, this is unacceptable case of COI and RGW.

When policies, guidelines, and other pages such as ], ], and ] were repeatedly explained to him, and the consensus clearly sided with reducing the proponents to those discussed at length in secondary sources (i.e. not him), he to announce that he was going to take a hiatus to work on his next book.

The issue is not that he disagreed with consensus or that he accepts the CMT, it is his total disregard for consensus, policies, and guidelines ], and his obvious tendentious COI-based POV-pushing in the matter. If he was writing against the CMT he'd've been removed sooner.

GMarxx is a single purpose account focused on:
*
*Emphasizing René Salm's focus on Nazareth:
*
*Generally carrying out , even as GMarxx has only made .

I raised the possibility that Renejs had not really left but was socking as GMarxx on the CMT talk page, and (despite having gone on a hiatus to complete a book). If it had been a few days later, I'd totally buy that Renejs just decided to check on things. If he said he was backing away from just the CMT article and had activity on other articles, I'd totally buy that he just saw the discussion on his watchlist. But, given the obvious similarities between GMarxx's and Renejs's aims, Renejs's immediate response ]. They are also never on the site at the same time, but there is enough overlap in their range of activity to conclude they're in the same time zone. What information the two accounts are attempting to add to the article is not relevant -- what matters is that they are socking to edit war over that information, and are either not participating in discussion or are only acknowledging discussion that goes their way.

The two accounts are being used to carry out edits that are against the consensus on the talk page, one not engaging in discussion, the other ]. In particular, they are both on Richard Dawkins that is original research, a potential BLP violation, and against the consensus on the talk page. And yet, Renejs has the gall to tell because the consensus does not go his way. While the consensus on other matters is not universally identical, the changes he suggests have no support whatsoever.

There is disagreement among the other editors, but even the most disagreeable can see beginnings of agreement, and even the most pessimistic can hope for consensus -- just not with Renejs or GMarxx, because his behavior is completely incompatible with this site's practices.

At a minimum, we must:
*temporarily block both accounts to prevent further edit warring on the article, and so we can arrange a...
*topic ban both accounts from articles relating to Early Christianity and Salm's work
That's if we don't just block (or even community ban) both accounts on the grounds of ], ], ], ], ], and ].

] (]) 19:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' At a minimum, it looks like a sockpuppet investigation is in order. ] (]) 19:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I should point out that there is no ] in identifying Renejs as René Salm as the user has done so himself, event used article talk pages to promote information about his books. I have no comment on the sock-pupping, but what ] describes does evoke ]. More serious is that Renejs is using Misplaced Pages to make himself more known, in violation of ]. This includes putting out information about his upcoming book and vehemently disagreeing with proposals to restructure the article in line with ] to exclude Renejs and other self-published non-experts. There is a major conflict of interest in both of these actions. That Renejs is an SPA is obvious . It is not a problem in itself, but when he misuses Misplaced Pages to promote himself, his books and his pet theory, it's more problematic. He's attitude to Misplaced Pages is also problematic, openly declaring he'll violate the rules to push for the ] . The whole history of Renejs at Misplaced Pages shows that he is here to promote himself, gladly edit war to that end, and that he has no interest in constructing an encyclopaedia beyond his ].] (]) 19:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Enough is enough. This user was discussed here last month: ]. I'm a relatively latecomer to this issue, and have been appalled by Renejs' behviour - blatantly COI editing, edit warring to add in BLP violations, and personal attacks like . I should also point out that when I saw another editor identify renejs as René Salm, I reported this as a possible outing, but the advice I received from oversight was that this is not the case - the user in question has previously admitted his identity. ]] (]) 19:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{CUnote}}. {{userlinks|GMarxx}} is a {{confirmed}} sock. The others are {{u|MithrasPriest}}, {{u|Spacelib}}, and most concernedly, {{u|Gekritzl}}. I've blocked them all indefinitely, though Gekritzl's I don't intend to be permanent. I've also blocked Renejs 36 hours for edit-warring, totally independent of any checkuser action. ] 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Update''' Even though Renejs is currently blocked for 36 hours, he is now back socking . The socking, in addition to earlier policy violations, only goes to show once more that Renejs, who exclusively edit this topic, is on Misplaced Pages ''only'' to right great wrongs.] (]) 10:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I think it is incumbent upon me to point out, as I already have on the talk pages of the editors concerned, that Jeppiz is wrong. I am not René Salm and I consider him to be a particularly unpleasant and not over-bright liar. The only thing we have in common is that we have both been professional musicians. Otherwise, I am a professional historian and publish what I hope is sound work, if not world-renowned, via peer review while trying to fit in all my teaching commitments which is why it takes years to finish anything. The comment was based on my current research project and was designed to inform a debate about Carrier. It is hardly important one way or another.
There is however a certain delicious irony in Salm being criticized and having his block extended when for once in his miserable and futile career of lies, attacks, smears and intellectual incoherence he had actually done nothing wrong!] (]) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Yet you're on an anonymous account, which also seems to be an SPA, and you've concluded that Renejs had done nothing wrong with his most recent edit warring, which is clearly inaccurate. ] (]) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'm on an anonymous account for purely professional reasons. I am not a SP, although due to the instability of my phone line my IP address changes fairly frequently. As for: 'you've concluded that Renejs had done nothing wrong with his most recent edit warring, which is clearly inaccurate'; where do I say that? On the contrary, I have made clear my distaste for Salm's actions on numerous while trying to untangle this wholly unnecessary mess.
:My one aim in contributing to WP is to try and improve the content of the articles. Salm clearly is here to promote his work. From that point of view, if I had a vote it would be for at the very least a topic ban.] (]) 16:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. My 'for once...he has done nothing wrong' reference in the initial comment was specifically to block extension on the charge of socking, which whatever else he is guilty of (and let's face it, the man's guilty of practically everything else) was an erroneous charge. That has in any case now been corrected.] (]) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:I think it's pretty unlikely that ] is Renejs. However, I would urge the IP editor to establish a named account—it allows one to preserve anonymity and avoid the suspicion that is often directed at IP editors who contribute to articles with contentious histories.

:I also think it would be a good idea to reverse the recent lengthening of Renejs' block, since I don't think he's been using this IP to evade his initial block. ] (]) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

::I agree with ] on both accounts. I no longer think the IP is Renejs. I do think it was a reasonable assumption at first: Renejs talks about his book project on CMT, is blocked, and an IP turns up whose first actions is to head to CMT to talk about his book project. It looked like a ]. So it would be quite helpful if the IP would create an account. As for Renejs, I've already asked the admin who first blocked him (and who has checkuser rights) to verify that the IP is not Renejs and then reverse the lengthening of Renejs's block.] (]) 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Already done , guys. ] (]) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' It's not that I'm overly sensible, but I'm getting a bit tired of all the personal attacks directed at me by Renejs. '''loose canon", "hypocrite", "bully", "malicious",''' etc , . I can understand he is dissatisfied that I thought he was socking, but I wasn't the only one, I've retracted that when it became clear it was a mistake, I've called on the first blocking admin to shorten the block, which has been done. I don't expect Renejs to like me, but I believe my accusations against him have been factual (vowing to edit war and a strong ] ). Insults like '''loose canon", "hypocrite", "bully", "malicious",''' etc. seem a bit uncalled for.] (]) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== <s>One</s> ''Four'' down, one to go: Time to sort out what to do with Renejs ===
{{ec}}Ok, Courcelles confirmed via CU that GMarxx as a sock of Gekritzl, and ].

Courcelles has also blocked Renejs for 36 hours for edit warring, with no comment as to socking. That Renejs returned so quickly still makes me believe that he and Gekritzl were at least ].

Given Renejs's other behavior (even without the socking issue) is unacceptable, we still need to discuss the possibility of at least topic banning Renejs from all articles relating to Early Christianity and his offline research, if not just an indef block.

To repeat:
*
*
*
* ; and
*]
*

What his beliefs are do not matter, what his research is does not matter (beyond the fact that it is self-published and fringe) -- all that matters is that he believes he is entitled to do as he pleases to push his beliefs onto the site, and will act against the site's interests, policies, guidelines, and consensus because of that entitlement.

] (]) 20:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:While I of course can't speak to offsite collusion, technically, Renejs is {{unrelated}} to the other four socks. And while I've indeffed Gekritzl for now, I don't object to someone changing that after discussion. ] 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

::That is good to know, thanks ]. So we've established that there was extensive socking but Renejs was not involved. That doesn't change things, of course. He is still using Misplaced Pages to push himself, advertising his self-publish books, and obstructing any change to the article that would remove him (based on ] as he has no expertise in the field). That, combined with the edit warring and even explicit promise/threat to continue to edit war is the issue.] (]) 20:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''Oppose topic ban''' I read and on that alone, he should not be be topic banned. ] (]) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. Do you mean:
:*That a topic ban is not enough in the light of his other behavior?
:-or-
:*That his content-based position in those comments excuse , , , and so on?
:Or do you have something else to excuse those behaviors besides a content-based? Because ], especially when there's complete overlap between a user's content and the disruptive editing. ] (]) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::I think this ANI is an ad hominem attack against him, that he's a thorn in the flesh against many editors . . . can you say anything good about him? Maybe he doesn't understand completely how things work here (he only edited occasionally over many years but he's very knowledgeable), I like his website and don't think he's inappropriately promoting it. I don't see how the dif you provided above shows he insists that the article mentions him. At this point I don't think there's any valid reason for a topic ban or at the very least, I'd hate to see him gone because I think he knows the subjects he edits but maybe not what a RS is and that can be very frustrating. ] (]) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::So, people trying to add content ] excuses any disruptive behavior and trumps policy, guidelines, and consensus on their part? Ok, I'm now ignoring anything else you have to say in this discussion now, and encourage others to do likewise. ] (]) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: involving this editor was closed as a ] issue with a few guidelines recommended. ] (]) 20:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::For the record, the previous ANI about the user was closed by an involved non-admin. Closing by an uninvolved admin is good. Closing by an involved non-admin on ANI is rather bad. And I must agree with ] in finding it rather extraordinary that somebody should argue that the fact that they like a person's webpage should be an excuse for said person's behavior on Misplaced Pages. There are persons whose opinions I like a lot who have been blocked, and I've never opposed that, nor even seen anyone oppose it before. Could I respectfully suggest focusing on the actual issue instead of our personal likes or dislikes. As Ian said when filing the ANI, the issue here is behavior, not content.] (]) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Recent vandalism of many articles ==

User ], probably one of a masters' many sockpuppets, is consequently deleting sourced content and replacing it with own POV-content, accusing everybody who is not of his opinion with sockpuppetry and searching for allies. He has been warned many times for being involved in disruptive editing in the and at the ]. Especially these articles are affected: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. How to respond to such vandalism? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi ], if you can provide specific examples of this users editing that you have mentioned above. If you havent done it before see ] for guidance on how to do so. ] (])(]) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zhou_dynasty&diff=640306580&oldid=639271469 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shang_dynasty&diff=640295114&oldid=639186591 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wusun&diff=647011527&oldid=646999999 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Qiang_(historical_people)&diff=640310830&oldid=639428161 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kangju&diff=647251410&oldid=647238173 ; POV-pushing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tashtyk_culture&action=history ; POV-pushing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karasuk_culture&action=history ; POV-pushing.

I have counted at least 15 sockpuppets of the same master. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ec}}According to , the IP OP geolocates to Germany, where other socks of ] also locate. , and the evidence leaves me only inclined to believe he's right. Only thing left to do here is block the IP. ] (]) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::I've notified Krakkos about this discussion. ] (]) 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I can't follow you. Do you mean everybody from Germany is a sockpuppet of this Tirgil34? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::No, just people ]. ] (]) 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::What kind of behavior is this? Being interested in central asia? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I was actually considering adressing this issue on ANI myself. Recently i've been making an attempt to revert ] edits by ], who has been promoting ] ] theories on Misplaced Pages for years through ] of ]. In accordance with ], article creations (including edits i presume) by banned users qualify for immediate ]. Tirgil34 edits have especially done signicant damage of WP's coverage of ]n history, a good example is the ] article ], which had been present on WP for months until deleted upon my request earlier today. Tirgil34 uses serious editors who attempt to repair the damage he has done, for example, the respected ] was ] through Tirgil34's scheeming a couple of months ago after ] fringe additions by ], later confirmed to be a Tirgil34 sock, to the article ]. Tirgil34 appears to have access to an impressive number of IP's (as examplified in the of ]), making it practically impossible to prevent his disruptive edits through blocking. He has been pursuing his agenda with extraordinary ] for years, and appears to be still active despite his numerous bans, as examplified by of a ] IP within minutes Tirgil34's additions to ]. Upon the ducky IP's fulfillment of the ], the ] enters the article to enforce the IP's edits. Yagmurlukorfez has earlier been pushing Tirgil34's theories on a wide range of articles, including ], ], ], ] and many more, which seems to be his only purpose on WP. Given Tirgil34's tendentiousness and access to a large amount of IP's, i fear the only solution is careful monitoring of victimized articles by responsible editors. I will not be able to do this on my own. If any responsible admin would join in this effort i would assist with all means possible. ] (]) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::You are hiding four facts: 1. Tirgil34 is not related to Hirabutor's sockpuppets, 2. fringe theories were never detected, 3. you are pushing your own POV by deleting sourced contents, 4. you are using many IP's around the world to hide your sockpuppetry. That's the matter and this is what should be discussed. Another matter which should be discussed is how you attack other users with psychological warfare:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Atama&diff=prev&oldid=609971489

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=609967624&oldid=609896550

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=610458850&oldid=609973978

- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=prev&oldid=609536743 <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I'm uncertain weather your accusations are even worthy of a reply, but i'l reply nevertheless.

- 1. ] is a confirmed ] of ]<br>
- 2. ] has been pushed by Tirgil34 and his socks on countless articles, a good example is the of ]<br>
- 3. Deletion of articles made and edits made by banned users is ] in accordance with ].<br>
- 4. The last "facts" concerning racist attacks refer to edits made way before i even started cleaning up User:Tirgil34's mess on WP. These edits are obvious trolling. On Wusun an IP which appears connected to you ] . Perhaps you were mistaking me for yourself?
:Am I the only person who finds it oddly curious that they were able to pull four such differently linked diffs together at short notice. ] (])(]) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::What is your point? All of them are related to one and the same time frame. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::According to your contributions youve been editing for less than 24 hours and have managed to track down diffs from almost 9 months ago in under 15 minutes. Have you previously edited under a different IP or account that would have provided you with this insight prior to today? ] (])(]) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Does ipv6 tell you something?{{unsigned|2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3}}
:::::Unfortunatley yes, but without knowing who your ISP is to find out what the address lifetime they have allocated to your IP address is its not much help in proving/disproving what addresses youve edited under previously (legitimately or otherwise) to disprove or prove the concerns mentioned above.] (])(]) 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ec}}The "evidence" provided by the OP for "POV-pushing" consists of Krakkos or information or usually citing a Princeton-published work. In , he only improved refs. He also , The last bit I point to (the removal of information) is the only thing that I could begin to be worried about, but would still need good evidence to not assume that it was ultimately in good faith.
:As for the IP's claims that Krakkos is socking under the last four links he provided: we should all be insulted the IP thinks we're that stupid; and at the very least, treat the poorly-evidenced accusation as a personal attack on Krakkos, if not trolling.
:We should block the IP OP. They're clearly not here in good faith, and can only be assumed to be a sock of a blocked POV-pusher who Krakkos has tangled with before. ] (]) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Seems you would like to block me before I can provide the sock accounts?{{unsigned|2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3}}
:::If you really had anything beyond insinuations, you should've revealed them by now. ] (]) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::What a coincidence, all of them are related to Tirgil34:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Zheek

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mendsetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Krakkos

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ergative rlt

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Cantspans

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Banderheits

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Alsace38&offset=&limit=500&target=Alsace38

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=46.143.214.22&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/ArordineriiiUkhtt

here the master even admits he is using socks for "different topic areas": http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Rajmaan&oldid=525645285

... and what coincidence we see the main operating ip's 188. + 187. + 46. consequently in context with the same tactics of ip socking including name changing and allying with the same admins/users, and all of them are connecting Tirgil34's and Hirabutor's edits with one and the same Kurdish sockpuppet master. What a coincidence... also read Hirabutor's earlier evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=607457239 . Possibly more sock accounts were created, only an investigation could reveal it. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Hey buddy - if you're going to claim I'm a sock account, do me the favor of starting an investigation at ]. I would love to know who I'm actually a sock of! ] (]) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

*I agree with the concerns of repoter. The Reported user doing personel attacks (such as turanist, sockpuppet etc.) and pushing his/her POV and deleting countless reliable sources on several articals with the reason of "sockpuppet edits." But also same removals doing by sevaral IPs with the same reason. These are might be related. We have a serious problem with that. These actions harming neutrality of articals and need to be stopped.] (]) 23:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Long-time Pan-Turkist sock puppetry ===
If you review some Central Asian or Eastern European article (usually topics about Indo-Europeans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans (even Ossetians), Tocharians, Archaeology, Languages and cultures), you'll find tracks of ] edits and his socks. '''All of them are German! editors''' who are interested in Turkifying articles. Just check ] article. For example, this is and old unblocked sock: ], see his userpage and contribution, again another German who loves to Turkify anything he finds in wikipedia:
*''I am a German historian. I love history.''
All of them have same behavior, editing-style, edit summaries, and etc. He plays a "Good Cop Bad Cop" tactic, and that ] restores his edits every time. These guys are not here to build encyclopedia. They tries to push fringe and unreliable content in every article that they don't like. The above IP who submitted this laughable report, is Tirgil34 himself. Again a German from Germany! It was confirmed by SPI, that all of these users are one person or they work as a team/group. If his edits are not problematic, why different users and admins reverted all of his edits? And now he attacks other editors to find a way to return to wikipedia. Another point is, why all of this so-called GERMANs (who love history) act similar?! Admins should ban him and any IPs related to this Pan-Turkist sock master. Protect those articles and other editors watch similar edits to prevent this non-stop revisionist. --] (]) 08:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:Completely agree. Tirgil34 and Yagmurlukorfez (same person or not) are only interested in pushing their pet idea, a classic fringe view claiming that the Scythians (and related peoples) were Turkic and Turkic/Altaic languages are native to Europe. No long-time editor who is interested in Indo-European, Iranian or Turkic languages and peoples, or the history of Central Asia, can avoid having run into them and their socks at some point. --] (]) 09:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Some IP socks still attacking me with being sockpuppet and "pan-turkist/turanist" claims. Admins should do something to these harassments. It's obviously personel attack but always ignoring by admins and moderatos. Same for user Florian Blaschke. This is not the first time. On the other hand, I (or someone else) can edit whatever I/they want, you can't blaim the people with such thing for their interests on wikipedia.] (]) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Florian Blaschke looks actually ok, you can at least talk with him in a fine manner, even though he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation with Krakkos, who appears now with the same Korean/Japanese/Viatnemese proxy-server as Hirabutor made evident. The problem is the sock master, being recently very active with his sock Krakkos, blames other users for being in disagreement with the sock masters' opinion. When debating with Krakkos in the revision history I've noticed the sock master employs three different tactics ; 1. distraction: divert attention from the argument at hand and avoid debating the issue directly 2. ad hominem logical fallacy: blaming the messenger and not debating the message 3. fallacy of relevance ("red herring"): the submitter will attempt the "two wrongs make a right" tactic. In employing these tactics the sock master unwittingly admits the correctness of the opponent's orginal argument. Every attempt to discuss with Krakkos, as this user never admits own mistakes, will enter a dead end finally. The ] and nobody is doing anything against this. ] (]) 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::And ] is now making a loud quacking on a related article. ] (])(]) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Unrelated to the other IP's which are usually geolocated in the US, Iran, Japan and Korea. 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)~
Comment: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against Yagmurlukorfez, based on the fact that their edits at ] are very similar to earlier edits by Radosfrester and Pioikdiyma, blocked sockpuppets of Tirgil34. Hirabutor, mentioned in the paragraph above, is also a blocked sockpuppet of Tirgil34. See ]. --] (]) 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*I'm really getting sick of these nonsense actions. It's been a year since I joined wikipedia, I'm already investigated several times and nothing happened. Not sure is this some kind a tactic or stupidity of those troll IPs but ironicly, they still keep accusing me with being sockpuppet. I have no directly or indirectly relation with Tirgil34 or his sock accounts. I don't even know who is he. But here, even admins (such as ]) keep opening investigation about me again and again. This negative attitude among some admins against me is harming their neutrality.] (]) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Followup: the initial sockpuppet investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry. I have apologized to Yagmurlukorfez. --] (]) 00:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

==User SchroCat is vandalizing my talk page==
{{atop|{{resolved}}}}
Looking for some assistance. User SchroCat has twice vandalized my talk page. ] (]) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
* I am not sure those diffs rise to the level of vandalism. If he is saying you something you don't like just ask him to stay away. Have you done that? It might work. If it doesn't let someone know. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::It's doubtful, as I deleted his first comment and he replied with another straight away. I will delete this latest one and see what happens. ] (]) 23:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:Politely tell him on his talk page not to post to yours. If he continues then you can come back here. Bear in mind, he is likely to ask you not to post on his talk page. ] (]) 23:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

::Thank you for the advice. There doesn't seem to be any further activity so I don't think any further actions are necessary. ] (]) 00:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

::No. SchroCat has not vandalized your talk page. He or she has made ] posts to your talk page that certainly are not vandalism, and do not appear to be blockable for incivility. The editor who is closer to a civility block is ] for the personal attack right here of claiming vandalism. If you have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know what is ]. You can tell SchroCat to stay off your talk page, but basically the two of you should leave each other alone and stop the incivility. ] (]) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::], thanks for your comment. I was unaware of the specific distinction between the terms vandalism and uncivil as it pertains to Misplaced Pages. The comments on my page were unwelcome and I first tried to delete them only to have the user comment again. I have not posted any comments on the user's page, nor do I plan to in the future. There will be no further contact on my end in regards to this user. ] (]) 00:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
== Ayman Mohyeldin ==
{{atop|Content dispute. Nothing to be done here. ] (])(]) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}} {{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Ayman Mohyeldin}}
The issue of Aymans comments on the MSNBC show Morning Joe regarding Chris Kyle has resulted in death threats against Ayman. It has also initiated vile and abusive behavior on Aymans social media pages towards he and others. There is no huge relevance for this issue to be included in Aymans Wiki page other than to continue the harassment of Ayman. Please allow me to keep it off
00:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Hokiechicklet <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:If it has resulted in death threats, should that be added to the article? The comments have been reported in two reasonably major news sources that are cited in the article, and it's widely reported on the internet, so we're hardly the only place where this appears.
:This seems like {{u|Hokiechicklet}} has an issue with the content of the article, and that should be discussed at the article talk page; so far, the user has refused to do so. —''']''' (]) 00:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Note'''. Hokiechicklet has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. —''']''' (]) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Randykitty's commentary at AfD ==
{{archive top|result=There is nothing here worth acting on, unless anyone is unwise enough to reopen this fuss over a month-old nothing. IP 70.60.119.199 is warned to stop clogging up the board with baseless accusations. ] (]) 04:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
At ], ] made , forgetting that 1) afd is not for scrutinizing user behavior but for discussing articles 2) not contributors but contributions are generally to be commented on (outside afds of course where only articles should be discussed) 3) good faith should be assumed and 4) casting ] is never a good idea.

The user that Randykitty attacked reverted the edit but Randykitty .

I removed it again after stumbling upon it today and discussed the matter on Randykitty's talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Randykitty&oldid=647307430#Disruptive_editing

Randykitty restored his improper comment to the afd discussion and refuses to get the point. Action is needed. I suggest 1) removing the disruptive remark from the afd discussion and 2) blocking Randykitty until the afd discussion is closed to prevent further disruption. ] (]) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Nothing here warrants a block, and it's probably more shady that this is your first edit... ] ] 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Disruption that can't be stopped other than with a block always warrants a block. Even failing that, the incivil comment should be removed and the admin trouted, not so much for making it to begin with as for defending it and reverting it back twice. ] (]) 03:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::There was no disruption until you tag-team IPs started complaining about a stale comment that probably isn't even problematic. ] (]) 04:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Incivility/casting aspersions/misusing AfD to examine user conduct, etc. are all disruptive. As for stale, well, not any more. The issue was raised with Randykitty earlier today and his response is definitely not "stale". ] (]) 04:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Let me ask you a question: do you think it is disruptive to dredge up old incidents when this noticeboard is already so full that it takes way too long for the page to load? ] (]) 04:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Personally, I'd like to see ANI shut down permanently as 99% of the posts here are a waste of time. Still, a user came here and in good faith reported what he or she considered to be an issue requiring admin attention. Who's to decide which of the 100 petty issues is too petty for ANI? You? It's here, let's deal with it. I'd say pointlessly pontificating on how unimportant the issue is is more disruptive than the original report. ] (]) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*Dear IP, you need to learn to make ] if you are going to file a report at ANI or anywhere else. Please edit your report, using diffs rather than version iterations. Also, since you never participated in the AfD, nor indeed have you made any edits to Misplaced Pages, why did you file this ANI report? Are you {{U|MicroPaLeo}} or {{U|Herpetology2}} posting while logged out? If so, you need to log in and sign this report, or you will be censured and/or blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Are you ] using yet another alternate account? Then all you will have accomplished here is to get this IP account blocked as well. ] (]) 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS: This comment goes for the second IP in this discussion as well. ] (]) 03:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Picking on a new well-meaning user because they didn't format their post properly while derailing their ANI thread is unhelpful to say the least. How about a comment on Randykitty's behavior instead? No? I see. ] (]) 04:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::<s>I have to hand it to you. This may be the dumbest trolling job I've ever seen. ] (]) 04:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)</s>
:I was actually coming here to open a thread about {{IP user|206.125.140.113}}'s conduct, but I've been saved the trouble. It should be noted that Randykitty's disputed comment on the AfD happened over a month ago and it doesn't appear to have been an issue until {{IP user|206.125.140.113}} made a fuss about it. If anyone should be blocked to prevent disruption, it's these two IPs. It's more than obvious that someone is editing while logged out and also either trolling or incompetent. ] (]) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::The discussion on Randykitty's talk page happened not a month ago but earlier today. ] (]) 04:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, and in what way was that discussion necessary? If the first IP hadn't felt a need to revert a harmless comment from last month, none of this foolishness would have happened. This community has enough problems without you three IPs going around and making more. Randykitty isn't harming anything, too bad I can't say the same for you. ] (]) 04:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Rude remarks like the one Randykitty posted at that afd very much do hurt the community as they discourage editors from participating. They're why afd's basically a ghost town these days. The insulted editor reverted the comment, Randykitty restored it, and the editor backed away to avoid getting blocked for daring to revert an admin attacking him. That's not a recipe for a healthy community, and your defense of the admin's misconduct's not helping either. ] (]) 04:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Look, everyone sees right through what you're trying to do here - editing anonymously in order to report someone you've got a problem with. Sadly, people attempt this all the time. You've presented an extremely weak case coupled with a ton of melodrama. Unless some new, better difs are presented, this discussion is going to by closed pretty soon. ] ] 04:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Are you planning to remove the uncivil comment or not though? ] (]) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::There is no uncivil comment. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::No, nothing warrants removal. ] ] 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
===Proposal===

*'''Propose''' blocks for all three of these IPs for sockpuppetry per ] and for making claims against Randykitty one month after the fact about a discussion in which none of them participated. ] (]) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::He made the comment when he made it, but the most recent reinstatement of the comment after reversion happened not even a day ago. It's pretty much the same as if the comment was made today. The issue isn't stale at all. ] (]) 04:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::So you still don't understand why it is disruptive and fishy for an IP with no prior editing history to dredge up an issue from last month? ] (]) 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Easy support''' and some investigating should be done to determine if the accounts behind these IPs can be identified and indeffed. ] (]) 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', as it will contradict the sock farm's assertion about threads here being a waste of time. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::The willingness of registered users to cry "sockpuppetry" each time an IP user says something they don't like always amazed me. ] (]) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::You are amazed by the fact that we would be suspicious to see 3 IPs with no apparent prior editing history making an isuse over a very mild comment from last month? ] (]) 04:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm always amazed that socks think they're the first time anyone has tried sockpuppetry and/or that veterans of Misplaced Pages have never seen socking before. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Amazed, yes, every time! But never surprised. Every time an IP user says something a registered user doesn't like, the word "sockpuppet" is being used as a billy club to silence said IP user. It is indeed amazing. The predictability of it that is. And just look the fervor with which Randykitty's uncivil remark is being defended! Good ol' ANI, you're just the way I remembered you! ] (]) 04:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I do feel like my intelligence is being insulted. ] (]) 04:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::You're lucky it's just a puny IP user insulting it! If it were Randykitty insulting it, they'd get out of it unscathed. But with an IP user, you can just cry "sockpuppetry" until we're all blocked! And that's what you're doing. Good job! ] (]) 04:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - ]. ] ] 04:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

===Proposal 2===
*'''Propose''' Remove Randykitty's uncivil comment from the AfD and admonish him for making it, and then reverting it back twice. ] (]) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer ] (]) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The boomerang approacheth. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because I don't think we want every aggrieved editor out there to create a thread over some weeks-old issue and demand a retraction. If we give in this time, we are setting a mindless precedent. ] (]) 04:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::The issue isn't stale, the comment was reverted back earlier today. And the issue was discussed with Randykitty prior to posting this thread. It's not like the originator of this discussion went straight here. In fact, Randykitty gave the user a go-ahead to come here, see the discussion at his talk page. ] (]) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::What comment? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::The IPs' complaint stems from this original comment . Mind you, this comment was made on January 27. ] (]) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and then reverted yesterday, and reverted back also yesterday. Thus it isn't stale. Nevermind that though, focus on screaming "sockpuppetry" as does your friend who didn't even bother to read the original post apparently. ] (]) 04:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and double the boomerang on ] and his sockmaster account. Likewise for any other IP that !votes on either of these two proposals. ] (]) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Come on, there are more pressing things to deal with on this website. ] ] 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Heads-up: User:RevertBastard ==
It looks like {{user|RevertBastard}} is building themselves a Twinkle-derivative tool. While they haven't yet done anything anything against policy, their username does not inspire confidence about their longer-term intentions. -- ] (]) 12:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Duly noted. {{unsigned|RevertBastard|13:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
*We better hope he doesn't create a tool that vandalizes articles in a flash or even worse, a Vandalbot. ] (]) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== User:Enkhzaya.b ==

User {{Userlinks|Enkhzaya.b}} keeps removing well sourced information from ] and ] even after having been blocked for doing so. Previous ANI notification ]. For almost a year this has been exclusively a single-purpose account trying to whitewash one politician and his party. In she basically admitted to being an appointed propaganda drone. --] (]) 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
* Editor is blocked for a week. Perhaps the article can stablize and the editor can understand our policies. ]<sub>]</sub> 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Legal threat and harassment on ]'s talkpage ==

{{archivetop|status=resolved|result=comment redacted. <small>]</small> 02:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)}}
There is a as well as a hysterical personal attack (with my misspelt username in the title) full of spelling mistakes on ]'s talkpage. Not the first time I have been harassed for editing Pascal's page (even after I added her limited philanthropic work). In the past, the page had to be protected and I had a personal threat with a swearword posted on my talkpage, plus multiple personal attacks as you can see on the talkpage. I would like to see the legal threat and personal attack removed if I am to keep improving the page (which needs a lot of work now as the new editing does not match what the references say at all). Thank you.] (]) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:In the future, it's best to notify {{u|Elinruby}} on her talk page with the code in that orange box: <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}</nowiki>, so that she knows she's the subject of ANI topic. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::OK, I might make minor mistakes, but I am not the one issuing legal threats and making personal attacks about other editors on talkpages. Why is it taking so long to remove the legal threat? I fear I may be accused of more mistakes if I do it myself.] (]) 16:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Legal threats are usually left util the subject who has issued them has had time to retract them. If they dont retract them and the threat is obvious then they ''could'' be blocked per ] if they've been notified of this and havent edited since then it may be left for them to remove the next time they edit to give them chance to retract it. ] (])(]) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you for explaining. What I don't understand is that ] thinks it is not a legal threat. Yet the direct quote is very clear "libel suit." I honestly don't feel comfortable editing that page as long as it's not been removed. The aim is not to block anyone, but to remove the threat and also the personal attack, so that we can focus on constructive editing. So I'm just waiting to feel welcome on that page/talkpage again. I hope this makes sense. It seems reasonable to me!] (]) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::: the difference to where the comment was posted. I indicated that I didn't see it a ] but that they should seek a second opinion. ], ], ] 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes, so I am asking for second opinion(s) here. I should add that I wrote nothing libellous about that woman, so the legal threat is void. Those editors who can't spell and issue threats are just harassing me for the sake of it--or to intimidate me so that I stop editing Pascal's page in a fair and balanced way. Redacting the legal threat and my username from the headline/title on the talkpage would seem the first step, but I don't want to do it myself in case it is "against the rules." Please help.] (]) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Agreed having looked at the link all they have claimed is that they feel its possible that there ''may '' be a lawsuit. Theres no claim or threat to actually sue. It might be a very loose ] but it doesnt appear to be setting off any alarm bells. I'll strike the perceived threat and leave a note explaining why. ] (])(]) 17:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::There is definitely a chilling effect, and thanks for redacting the legal threat, but the tone is still very inappropriate. Calling me "dud" (I think they mean "dude"?), accusing me of all kind of inappropriate behaviour, etc. It sounds hysterical, doesn't it? I thought it was written by a drunk person when I first read it. I'm sorry, I still don't think it is appropriate. And my (misspelt) username is still in the title/headline, which is a way to shame me publicly--completely inappropriate. I would like to discuss the content of the article (there is a lot to say about the new edits), but NOT in a personal manner. Editing Misplaced Pages is not a personal matter; it's a neutral/objective editing process, which has nothing to do with "zigizag"...I can't deal with hysterical editors who attack me personally. Please help?] (]) 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not sure theres much more we can do with the particular post. There are strict criteria for editing other users comments and I'm not convinced that anything else there is anything more than prehaps being ]. The best thing to do would be to provide evidence to refute their accusations on the talk page.] (])(]) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:<small>Noting ]…</small> Per ]: Non-vandalism rollback-use notification and follow-up. Similar wholesale undo and follow-up . I've spotted that the ] article has been taken to ] twice recently, the second one by me (ie. ] first step over concerns of potential ] pushing). "Harassment" could be polite reminders of WP policy, of which I'm aware of eg. . Whilst the account has been around a while, there's still the scope for learning, as indicated in responding a couple of months ago at regarding what makes libre content. These diffs are obviously slanted towards my own memory and edits—other editors may have had different experiences elsewhere.<br/>
:'''{{U|Zigzig20s}}''': I can see that {{U|Amortias}} has now <strike>struck out</strike> some words over on ] per ; I'm not sure I see that as a directed legal threat. If this was the problematic line, excellent. But, if it is still something elsewhere in contravention of ] please could you help us understand the ''precise'' words that constitute the legal threat, ''where'' it appears, and whom it is ''from'' and whom it is ''directed at''. —] (]) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I removed my misspelt username removed from the title--nobody tried to help at all about this and it was simply horrible. Also writing "you does have a balance and an ownership and an edit warring problem" not only makes me wonder what language they speak, but also, it is very vituperative and abusive. I would like to see an apology if we are to move forward. Moreover, Lisa Kudrow is not a "starlet," but a producer like Pascal. But this is not a one-off. Sladen has been (see my response in that section, "Very creepy of you...") and on someone else's talkpage, about a topic they have absolutely nothing to do with. The harassment is constant.] (]) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Hi ], removing your username from a section that is about you makes it very difficult to understand what the section is about, this is most likely why no-one intervened to remove the information. The perceived legal threat was removed as per your request. The information the other user has posted with regards to both yourself and ] is there opinion on the matter, they are entitled to their opinion (even if everyone else disagrees with them) and the best thing that can be done if they havent broken any of the policies on Wikipeida is to just ignore them. ] warning is quite serious, trying to ] an editor is quite a serious matter. It may not have been your intention but in a similar manner as to the perceived legal threat things are open to interpretation including a possible outing. The best thing that you can do for now is ignore the edits that have been made that originally brought you here as it will be difficult to prove they meet the criteria for admin intervention. ] (])(]) 19:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I was joking around with Edward; that is ridiculous. My point is Sladen is watching my contributions and has been out to get me. I am traumatised by his comments on the talkpage.] (]) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::My goodness. I have no intention of suing Zigzig20s and apologize if I got his name wrong, omg. (I think I may have said zigZAG20s, so sorry if that was offensive...thought I was doing well to remember the 20s) I arrived at this article via an RfC and did some copy-editing and cleanup for tone before looking at the comments, which are rather contentious. Zigzig20s seems very concerned with demonstrating that comments made in one email last year were racist and quotes everyone and their second cousin to this effect, in a BLP that dismisses more than a half-dozen best-selling movies in a couple of sentences. I do find that there is an issues of balance here, as well as in the importance accorded to the email the context of the security breach. In fact I ran out of battery yesterday as I was taking this to BLP and will do so now. My point with the lawsuit remark was not that *I* am going to sue. I am not Amy Pascal and I have no interest in Amy Pascal. My only connection to any of this is that I was in a different building at Stanford University on the same day that President Obama proposed a cybersecurity initiative because of this breach, and this is one reason I say that the security issue was a *little* bigger than Amy Pascal's emails. But I think that if Amy Pascal chose to sue, she would win. The LA Times issued a correction saying she was not leaving before her contract ended. I made an edit that reflected that correction. Zigzig20s (must spell correctly lol) reverted it, along with every single other edit I made, mind you, but that was the critical one. If she cared enough to get someone to call the LA Times...she'll probably care about Misplaced Pages when she sees it. Zigzig20s has said that a statement is not libel if it is attributed. He is incorrect. It is libel if you know it is wrong and you publish it anyway, whether it is attributed or not. In this case, I am saying that if the LA Times issued a correction they probably had good reason to say they were wrong. That is ALL. I will repeat my comment on the talk page, that ZigZig20s needs to chill and learn to talk to other editors. Thank you to the editors that notified me of this discussion. ] (]) 00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::sorry, thought I was signed in. Above comment is mine. ] (]) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::OK. Now, when they say, "But I think that if Amy Pascal chose to sue, she would win.", it sounds like a veiled legal threat. There has been a suspicion of close connections--it started with unregistered users (see the talkpage) and it may have moved on to registered users. I wish administrators would not dismiss my legitimate concerns of harassment. Now, everything is backed up by references; Pascal could sue newspapers, but that's not our problem; I agree that we should expand the section about her career, but that does not entail removing the section about her "racially insensitive" remarks, which is fully referenced with countless articles in the international press. The problem is the lack of third-party references about her career achievements and philanthropic work. But the veiled legal threat seems completely inappropriate.] (]) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::How is that a threat? You're anonymous. If she sued anyone it would be Misplaced Pages, and that is the concern here. Misplaced Pages is the publisher. And it's reponsible for what it publishes, which is why we have BLP guidelines. But I came back in here to say that other editors seem to be trying to address at least the balance issue as regards the involvement of North Korea, and someone has done some research on the "step down" issue that I do not have time to evaluate right this second, so I will hold off on the BLP noticeboard for the moment. As for her career acheivements, they include more than half a dozen blockbuster movies notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages, so that really doesn't pass the giggle test. ] (]) 01:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Yes, the legal threats are directed at Misplaced Pages (and they are frivolous anyway because Misplaced Pages is only summarising her global press coverage with in-line references everywhere, not making anything up), although the personal attacks directed towards me are inappropriate. But editors who make legal threats should be warned by administrators. You're bringing nothing new to this. As I said on 22 December 2014, "it probably wouldn't hurt to expand the 'career' section with more of her career achievements and possibly add a 'philanthropy' section." I then added a philanthropy section. But we can't find enough third-party references about her career to flesh out the career section. Anyway, this page is about the legal threats, not expanding her page.] (]) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== User:SeBySpeeDy ==

{{User:SeBySpeeDy}} does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia: . Thank your for your action in advance. ] (]) 17:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*User shown the door and article temporarily semi-protected. I don't see the need for a rangeblock at this time, but any admin is free to implement one if appropriate. --<font face="Book Antiqua">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
**{{U|Kinu}}, thank you for your prompt and adequate action. ] (]) 17:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

==Tendentious editing, removal of well-sourced material, etc., at ] ==


{{user|Xenophrenic}}, {{user|Collect}}, {{user|LM2000}}, {{user|Jonotrain}}</br>
], ], ], ]</br>
I have to sleep after posting this, so won't be back until tomorrow, so take your time.</br>
I add material to Criticisms section</br>
Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead </br>
Xenophrenic deletes criticism from lead</br>
I restore.</br>
Deletes again, with untrue edit summary (i.e., “no summary”). There was a summary of the Al Jazeera and Salon pieces before sentence was added to lead.</br>
I revert and tell him “take it to Talk”</br>
And again</br>
Deletes it again even after I remove “racism” as compromise.https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sam_Harris_(author)&diff=646784582&oldid=646775831]</br>
Jonotrain restores my version</br>
Xenophrenic makesdubious claim of “copyvio”</br>
Then he deletes Criticisms section including Chomsky quote as well as sentence from lead, adds one paragraph to the portions of the Criticism section and retitles it “On Islam” under umbrella category of Views. </br>
Created “Political” section under Views, reinserted Chomsky quote, with support from two secondary news article sources, one from the Independent, as well as academic sources taken directly from the ] article.
Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead.</br>
A new editor to the page (LM2000) starts with a delete and claims UNDUE out of the blue </br>
Same editor, following Xenophrenic’s pattern, deletes Political section and merges some of it under “On Islam”, again deleting Chomsky quote, Lean, etc., and then self-reverts, claiming that he saw Talk and didn’t want to fight for the changes </br>
SPA reverts LM2000 self-revert (as well as his own edits, contradicting himself), and suddenly expresses a change of faith that he agrees (i.e., declaring that his own edits were wrong, basically), including Mondoweiss quote he inserted (from piece linked to and praised in Guardian piece by Greenwald)</br>
After reverting, I integrate quote that Jonotrain “signed” and posted in an exaggerated manner, apparently with the aim of having it declared UNDUE later. </br>
After I move Mondoweiss quote to Political section, Collect deletes it, dismissing the source as “very editorial”, then he removes categories (four of the five) under which Harris is categorized as Jewish.
Collect had directly edited the categories (Harris was categorized as a Jew four or five times) in his second of only two minor edits to the article before 2/16.</br>
As shown by this , his apparent aim was solely the removal of the Mondoweiss quote, claiming I violated BLPCAT with it.</br>
I continue to build the article. </br>
Xenophrenic continues to tendentiously revert</br>
After which LM2000 rejoins with a revert, and I expand the Political section further, after addressing Xenophrenic’s unfounded dismissal of sources on the Talk page as well as misrepresentation of HP piece , and he reverts again, claiming my edits are problematic.
Regarding sourcing, etc., see this Talk page thread, such as this comment dismissing Chomsky and two other sources on false grounds.</br>
Collect also started a bogus RfC.</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. I do not see btw what is bogus about the RfC. It identifies specific text and asks if it should be included. This discussion thread should be closed. ] (]) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

::While I agree that , I do agree that the material was not an accurate summary of the citations at all.
::Xenophrenic was right to , per ] (which is not BRRD, or BRRRRD). Per ], after the material was removed, you should have gone to the talk page seek consensus for its restoration. That is the spirit of ].
::Removing "racism" as a compromise was the wrong issue entirely. The articles cited (especially the Aljazeera piece) totally did support including the word "racism" in there somewhere, they just didn't support the notion of "widespread," and needed more exacting summaries (such as "Aljazeera, the Guardian, and Nathan Lean have accused Harris of racism.") Which is pretty close to . I would be happier if he then summarized the new section in the intro as well, but otherwise the edit was doing your work for you.
::The copyvio claim is hardly dubious. removes outright plagiarism from cited. Your was a quote (not plagiarism), but it was eventually turned into plagiarism by removing the blockquote tags.
::Harris represents a great deal of what I'm personally opposed to, {{small|(such that an article that represented only my personal views would portray him as just the pretentious, upper-class, and better-spoken version of the sort of redneck that beat up Hindus after 9/11, combined with the grown version of a teenager who becomes an atheist after finding flaws in ''his own misconceptions about'' religion)}} -- '''''but''''' I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. ] (]) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hope you got a good night's sleep. I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Addendum: I could imagine that goes against ] in the intro, but I'd have to study the article in fuller detail to make a solid decision one way or the other.
::<s>As for LM2000, I'm seeing edits to ], ], ], and lots of other wrestling articles, going all the way back to ]. I'm also seeing edits relating to movies, and other forms of entertainment. Is he editing outside of his usual area? Maybe. Is he a single purpose account? Hardly. Does calling him a single purpose account border on a ]? Possibly.</s>
::Collect's RfC looks to me to be a separate issue, and I do have to ask why OP want to classify a well-known ] he doesn't like as Jewish. ] (]) 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The salient facts are at ], and at ]. The desire of some to label an outspoken atheist as "Jewish" even to the extent of using a non-notable person's opinion from a non-notable blog to stress their ''Jewish tribal attitudes'' seems to be to run directly counter to both letter and spirit of ]. Clue: When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. ] (]) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Count is now seven - looks like "trying one more forum" failed. ] (]) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I don't have a clue what administrative action the Original Poster wants taken against multiple editors. (Ban them all on the request of the OP? Block them all on the request of the OP?) I also don't have a clue what the OP thinks is "bogus" about the RFC. Non-neutral, maybe. Bogus? Recommend '''Closure''' of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. ] (]) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ian.thomson}} I wasn't married to the "widespread" term by any means, and did not insert it myself. Xenophrenic removed the entire "Criticisms" section because he wanted to exclude other sources I'd added, while adding very little content in creating entire new subsections on "Views" from that section. When I started a section on "Political" views, which is well-supported, Xenophrenic tendentiously attempts to dismiss the sources on different grounds. He particularly dislikes the Chomsky source apparently because it is not directly related to Islam.
::I simply removed racism from the lead, as Greenwald focused on that, but Xenophrenic has warred to remove the entire statement, even after another rewrite, without collaborating. The sentence in the lead seemed DUE in some form, and my focus was not primarily on that.
::If there was a copyvio due to quotation marks being inadvertently removed, that would seem to be a formatting issue, and does not merit removal of the text. Another sign of a refusal to collaborate in good faith. In this case, however, <u>it was in fact Xenophrenic that removed the quoation marks in the first palce</u> with , because he wanted to call the Nathan Lean Salon article a "polemic", as it is referred to in the Independent news article on the controversy. That is ]. He has also accused me of without grounds, which is a personal attack.
::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} OK, point taken, as I don't know whether topic bans are needed, but I would like people to be warned against dismissing sources on illegitimate grounds, such as Xeno calling three RS “jokers”, and while admitting that Harris has “responded to them extensively”, seeks to exclude their statements.
::I'm not here trying to make mountains out of mole hills, etc., but trying to create a little content in such an editing environment is extremely time consuming and counterproductive. What does one do when a "content dispute" does not work out in accordance with the "content policies" due to tendentiousness, refusal to edit collaboratively in good faith, etc. Things like civil POV pushing are not easy to deal with, and I have had academic sources culled directly from a related WP article dismissed offhandedly because a group of editors are trying to keep well-sourced critical content they don't like out of the article.
::{{reply|Atsme}} Thanks, got a little sleep.</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::One other point that should be examined follows.</br>
::With , Xeno goes from this<blockquote>''Fellow contributor at ''The Huffington Post'', R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of fostering an intolerance towards Islam, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism that he opposes. '' </blockquote>
::To this<blockquote>''Fellow contributor at '']'', R. J. Eskow, has cautioned Harris, "in your zeal to end the harms caused by religion, don't be driven by blind faith down a course of intolerance."''</blockquote>quote mining and misrepresenting the import of the source, which is plainly evident from the title, both when originally published in 2006 and when re-posted on the site in 2011.
::I mention that to him on the Talk page, and with paraphrase the source and reword the first passage as<blockquote>''“Fellow contributor at '']'', R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of presenting misleading analyses and making unfounded inflammatory statements, and cautioned him against following a course of intolerance toward Islam.”''</blockquote>
::And add a direct quote to the Political section<blockquote>''“R. J. Eskow, has stated, "Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure".''</blockquote>that parallels and supports Greenwald’s preceding statement regarding neocon political views <blockquote>''Greewald states that Harris shares the same basic right-wing worldview of Muslims as his neoconservative supporter ]. ''</blockquote>
::Then Xeno removes the entire Political section yet again.</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

== Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw ==
{{archive top|1=Nope, nothing to see here. No "abusive behavior" from Montanabw. And recommend that, in the first instance, people talk directly to one another, in an attempt to resolve misunderstanding... ] (]) 20:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
User ] has a history of referring to Slovenian Misplaced Pages editors as "nationalists" in edit summaries and talk pages, often in the context on the article about the ], regardless of the merit of their contributions (which, coincidentally, are about a horse breed and have nothing to do with "nationalism"). Here is the latest example: . Of course, she is perfectly entitled to dislike the country and its people, but I believe her behavior constitutes harassment based on national origin, as well as a failure to presume good faith. --] (]) 19:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Maybe you could have talked to the user before raising the issue here. As far as any "history" is concerned, you're essentially a newbie, so how you are an expert on the user's "history"? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Google "montanabw" and "Slovenian"/"Slovenia" and "nationalists" and you will see that this wasn't the first such incident.--] (]) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
: I'm confused. Why is "nationalist" considered "abusive", or even insulting in any way?? (hey Bugs, how ya doin?) — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::It's abusive because it presumes a nefarious, ideologically driven agenda instead of a simple disagreement about the facts. --] (]) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*:First off, do not attribute motive to other editors. Second, you are ] Canvasssing at and poisoning the well. I have no "dislike" of Slovenia or its people, but I DO uphold the ] policy against POV-pushing. And there has been a problem in the now GA-class article ] article for YEARS with pro-Slovenian activists/nationalists constantly wanting to alter the article so that Slovenia is credited as the sole source of where the Lipizzan horse breed was developed. This is in part linked to a larger issue where Slovenia even sued in the EU courts to claim exclusive use of the breed name "Lipizzan" and take it away from Austria, the nation otherwise most closely affiliated with the breed due to the ] and the ]. It is true that the breed takes its name from the stud farm that is now at Lipica inside of present-day Slovenia, but the horses were developed in the Austria-Hungarian Empire and foundation animals came from across Central Europe and about five different nations could "claim" them for various reasons of either national boundaries surrounding Lipica or the locations of other stud farms that contributed foundation bloodstock. (Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Italy). The article has been carefully worked on over the past five years to address this issue. OK, so here's the deal about "here we go again": This is not the first rodeo about this issue: . This goes back even farther: So yes, "here we go again." I will note that this user made one good contribution to the article in 2013: content which is now in the article in the "history" section. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*::I note the irony that you would chide me for attributing motive to other editors, considering that you have no qualms about attributing motive ("nationalism") to me. I see you also got your facts all wrong. It was Austria, not Slovenia, that tried to claim its status as a sole inheritor of the Lipizzan by trying to convince the EU that it should become the only official keeper of the breed's registry books. The Slovenian government tried to prevent that from happening. Slovenia is a tiny, thoroughly insignificant country with no international influence, so it's laughable that you are trying to portray it as some sort of a villain out to steal Austria's heritage. But that's besides the point. The issue is that you presume "nationalism" on the part of Slovenian editors even though you make no such claims about editors of other nationalities, who have also added information about the Lipizzan to the article (and alphabetized lists, etc.).--] (]) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::I'm not suggesting that it was intended this way, but in the Slovenian context, "nationalist" can have a pejorative meaning. See ]. If that's the case, perhaps this can be chalked up to a misunderstanding and disagreement over content. ] (]) 20:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I see absolutely no abusive behavior on the part of Montanabw. Your recent edits were intended to give more weight to one country's contributions. Whether that is correct or incorrect, it is a nationalistic edit. Calm down, discuss on the talk page, abide by the reliable sources. ] (]) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::Speaking of disclosures, you somehow forgot to disclose the fact that you urged me to take my complaint to this page. --] (]) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*I do not see a pattern of abuse from Montanabw there. I see a slightly uncivil edit summary when you tried to make a ] edit on a good article. Discuss your contetn suggestion in article talk. Nothing else to say here. --] (]) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': ], any accusation of "harassment" (being used as a euphemism for bigotry, it would seem) and "abusive behavior" and not assuming good faith is pretty ridiculous in connection with a respected and well-liked editor such as ]. If anything, Montanabw consistently demonstrates the exact opposite. Aside from the ridiculous premise, this report appears to be retaliatory because the reported editor isn't having any of LJU2ORD's ]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

* {{ec}}LJU2ORD, please use the article talk page to discuss the issue. Also see ].
* Montanabw, please don't use edit summaries to comment on other contributors -- "do not attribute motive to other editors" is really good advice; AGF says LJU2ORD truly believes the white horses came from wherever they think they came from. I understand the same ol' same ol' is frustrating, but focusing on the sourcing and the like works better (saves you having to post on ANI, if nothing else).
* Karanacs, please see ]. <small>]</small> 20:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
**To the degree that my edit summary was snarkier than it needed to be, I apologize. I'm still sick of this stuff though. When we took this article to GA, Dana boomer and I bent over backwards to be fair and to present an NPOV on the issue. My fatigue on this matter is rather pronounced. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Behavior of Karelian P. ==
{{archive top|result=1. He is allowed to remove warnings from his own page. 2. Your warnings did not give him any idea what he was supposed to have done, not even a related article - and they weren't signed. 3. Possible block evasion is an issue for ], not here. 4. Whilst he shouldn't have called you a moron, the edit was pretty silly - changing a link which then redirected back to the article you changed it from. 5. Looking at your own recent editing history, posting at ANI to draw attention to it might not be the greatest idea ever. Especially posting multiple times about petty content disputes. ] 23:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
User Karelian P. issued a personal attack against me on Party of Democratic Action: Revision history, calling me a moron in one of his edits. He also deleted 3 vandalism warnings that I have posted on his talk page (although you are not supposed to do that). Please act accordingly. ] (]) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:On your last comment (removing warnings), you are incorrect. Please read the page ] and note that it explicitly says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users." User are absolutely allowed to remove warnings left by others, it is interpreted as they have read the warning. Nothing more, nothing less. No comment on anything else. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why no comment on anything else? Since when are personal attacks allowed? ] (]) 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean we can freely insult each other here? Aren't personal attacks a violation of the core rules? Why won't he be sanctioned like everyone else? ] (]) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== Serb1914 violates ban ==

Serb1914 has recently violated his topic ban on the Balkans by using another IP adress to go around his topic ban on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović, and then openly editing Party of Democratic Action despite the fact that both articles fall under his topic ban. Please act accordingly. ] (]) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

==Personal attack and ownership at 2015 Copenhagen attacks==

:{{la|2015 Copenhagen shootings}}


Dear admin,
Curly turkey et al are owning the article suppressing information and call those with whom they disagree trolls. Eyes needed. ] (]) 03:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
:Do you have any specific diffs you can point to? And since this is your very first edit, whose edits are being removed? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:: I removed and have not otherwise interacted with this troll. ]&nbsp;] 04:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::More personal attacks. A brief review of Curly Turkey's edits on the page in question and concerns raised on his/her user page make his/her misconduct clear. Is this the behavior expected of a wikipedian trusted with some admin tools??] (]) 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::If it is, then someone quick give me the admin tools! ]&nbsp;] 04:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


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.
:Why are you editing while logged out? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
== Copyright violation and no communication ==
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
{{User|Ruben fdo}} keeps violating copyrights by copying material and sometimes edit warring with an IP. ] is the page, it should be fully protected or this user should be blocked. ] (]) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
== Personal attacks and harassment ==


This user {{ping|LJU2ORD}} has been harassing and making personal attacks , , on a number of editors, maybe they need a time out. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 05:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC) :"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)
::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)
:I don't mind a time out at all since I'm taking a (possibly permanent) Wikibreak anyway, but I should note that Mlpearc and his cronies have been harassing -- or at least consciously bothering me -- for the better part of a day. He was the one who showed up on my talk page and accused me of harassment (first link above) simply because I responded to Montanabw on her talk page -- as I was told to do by an admin. (And my response to Montanabw was identical to the one in the closed ANI discussion above -- not harassing at all.) --] (]) 06:01, 17 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)
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 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)

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

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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: