| Revision as of 18:54, 6 March 2015 editBeenAroundAWhile (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users103,575 edits →Haffy881 and massive amounts of copyright infringements← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:49, 24 December 2024 edit undoSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,342 edits →North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1174 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive | |||
| ==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action== | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| {{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| |age=36 | |||
| {{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| |index=no | |||
| ] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |numberstart=826 | |||
| |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c | |||
| }} --><!-- | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| 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. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| :Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (]) | |||
| {{archivetop|NAC: There seems to be agreement that this thread has gone on too long, especially now that two of the edit warriors have been blocked. Closing. ] (]) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: '''''' | |||
| :::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] == | |||
| Could an admin please visit this article and determine if temporary page protection is necessary while a BLP dispute is resolved? One editor appears intent on repeatedly re-inserting contentious, negative "opinions" about the living person simply because those opinions were found in blogs, op-eds, books, etc. Over the objections of several other editors, the editor keeps reverting any attempt to bring the content into BLP and NPOV policy compliance. When the problematic content was moved to the Talk page for discussion and dispute resolution, he re-inserted it again without addressing concerns. The subject of the article is a vocal critic of religion, most recently of Islam, so it doesn't help that this is a current event hot topic. This one editor has spent the past week inserting various forms of insinuated racism, bigotry, warmongering, Islamophobia, Jewish tribalism, academic dishonesty, right-wing ideologue fascism, etc., with no regard for impartiality or balance. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Disclosure: I'm one of the involved editors at the article. While there have been no technical violations of 3RR, there is still edit warring, and the ratio of productive discourse—to—reverting is not encouraging. And now there appears to be personal sniping. This matter is also related to the above ], but since no one reads the top half of this noticeboard anymore, I thought I would renew attention by requesting a single specific action: temporary page protection. ] (]) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I also want to point out that concerns have been made about that user's behavior just this morning in that previous thread. Despite being warned just a few days ago the personal attacks and defamatory comments have yet to cease and an administrator hasn't responded. You can view those concerns in the section.] (]) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 . | |||
| * Bulleted list item | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've noted this ] thread and have no qualms about indicating that it is yet another iteration in a continual string of disruptive, POV pushing ] in relation to the content dispute described by Xenophrenic. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::This is increasingly looking like something I'm going to have to bring up with ArbCom.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ubikwit, it's kind of ridiculous for you to accuse Xenophrenic of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you brought the current debate on the Sam Harris article to this noticeboard first, don't you think? With regard to Harris article, I see one editor pushing a biased POV and one editor being disruptive by working against consensus and making spurious claims of bad behavior by other editors. That editor is you, Ubikwit. ] (]) 04:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply|Jweiss11}}} Don't you think one thread is enough? | |||
| ::], 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) | |||
| ::::You and I are obviously on the opposite sides of the content dispute, and you and Xenophrenic have been editing that page since long before I arrived (not the case for LM2000). Accordingly, you and Xenophrenic might be partially responsible for the promotional bloat of primary sourced text in the article, but you are certainly responsible for excluding critical material while including all sort of vacuous praise from like-minded atheists, etc. That is an inverse form of POV pushing, because the end result is that you and Xenophrenic and other people trying to exclude reliably sourced criticism in violation of NPOV are skewing the article. Remember, it was you that deleted a Political section including RS material related to characterizations of "right-wing neoconservative policies" and "the national security state" and replaced that section with a "Social and economic politics". I have already indicated to you in a very civil manner that you have a ] issue with respect to the article, yet you persist in trying to push your ill-informed POV at me while conflating religion and politics, disparaging academic sources and professors of history and theology, etc. I'm through talking to you per ]. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 07:51, 21 February 2015 (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) | |||
| :::::Ubikwit, I've made a lot of edits to the Sam Harris article, but they have be mostly of the maintenance, copy-editing variety. I'm not responsible for any of the bloat in the article, nor am I really reasonable for writing much, if any, of the substantive content. | |||
| ::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
| :Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| ::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===None of this matters=== | |||
| I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Xenophrenic made it clear that he has created this thread in an attempt to renew attention to the issue since it may have been buried here. Whatever the case, you are evading the hypocrisy of your WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusation. Your claim about my competence is ridiculous. I am very well-versed with Sam Harris's work and its criticism. I understand that some people like to treat religion and politics as if they are two entirely different animals, but it is a fact the religions in questions here are political and that the politics of religious people are informed by their religious beliefs. More generally, just because different departments on a college campus tend to reside in different buildings, that doesn't mean the things they study are actually disparate. And we're not beholden to honor that academic silo-ing in every section of every article on Misplaced Pages, particularly when the subject is a person who has made criticisms of religions that focus in large part on the real-world, political impact of religion. I deleted the "Political" section because it was a poorly-defined, redundant concoction that you designed to serve as repository for an unbalanced assault on Harris that includes defamatory commentary. The consensus of involved editors at the article seems to agree with my assessment and action. | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| :::::If anyone lacks competence, it's you with regard to your poor understanding and application of various Misplaced Pages principles, e.g when you claimed that my talk page commentary constituted original research—an utter contradiction in terms—or just now with your FORUMSHOPPING accusation, of which you either lack the sensibility to understand or the intellectual honesty to admit your hypocrisy. ] (]) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{out}} I had NAC'd this because a request for arbitration was opened, but since that seems to be headed toward being declined (5 decline votes at this time), I've re-opened it for further community comment. ] (]) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} I've withdrawn the request for arbitration. Is there any way to combine this thread with the related thread that preceded it?</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think there's any need to cut and paste that very long thread here. Links should be sufficient. ] (]) 04:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just noticed another disturbing comment by Xenophreic that I missed<blockquote>''Misplaced Pages policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Misplaced Pages policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree?''</blockquote>That kind of analogy is simply unacceptable. It is uncivil and represents a battlefield mentality. The fact that there was no BLP violation in the quote had already been determined on the relevant BLP/N thread, and the assertion that I was advancing a narrative of "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" is a personal attack.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you found a source which said "Willis Warf says George Gnarh is a pedophile" - would you find it ''remotely usable'' as a source for a claim in Gnarph's BLP "''Gnarph has been called a pedophile''"? Cheers. ] (]) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do not presume to speak for me in your edit summary. Your hypothetical scenario is not analogous, so it is curious that you would repeat the personal attack in order to try to defend Xenophrenic's grossly insulting and offensive post, which needs to be revdeleted.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I did ''not'' "repeat the personal attack" but '''you were the only one who "repeated the personal attack"''' I m a tad bemused by your post supra. And I believe if you want something revdeled ''which you iterate'', there is a logical disconnect. ] (]) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My question to you, Ubikwit, was absolutely civil and in no way a personal attack. If you find the analogies disturbing, then they have served their purpose in conveying to you how offensive some of your edits and proposed edits are. You have repeatedly argued to insert the caustic opinions of a few critics into a biography of a living person, with disregard for Misplaced Pages policies: | |||
| ::::*{{xt|On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like (insert opinion piece calling the subject a racist)}} | |||
| ::::*{{xt|The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis. (insert opinion piece in which the writer says he doesn't want to discuss the subject's racism, but his bigotry and irrational anti-Muslim animus).}} | |||
| ::::*{{xt|The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above. and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent. (insert quote from The Independent saying that someone accused the subject of racism)}} | |||
| ::::*{{xt|Reliably published statements of both Hussain and Lears support the association of ideas espoused by Harris with scientific racism. ... It really doesn't matter if you don't like that. It is not a BLP violation to include those characterizations with proper attribution. Retract your personal attack accusing me of smearing, etc.}} | |||
| ::::*{{xt|As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Misplaced Pages, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate.}} | |||
| ::::You inserted the contentious opinion that Harris is Muslim-bashing because he is Jewish , and simultaneously edit-warred to categorize the avowed atheist as "Jewish". That's not a personal attack, that is substantiated fact. ] (]) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I am upset over the ArbCom forumshopping exercise and other examples of tendentiousness from one editor at this point. 40,000 characters ''cumulative edits'' on Sam Harris' BLP alone (much of which is essentially refusing to admit he has no support for his edits, so he keeps adding them in, over and over and over). 24,000 characters on noticeboards in 3 days. Over 60,000 characters on the SH talk page in ''under'' one week. When an editor hits '''over 120,000 characters in under a single week without apparently managing to get ''any'' support from other editors''', I suspect "tendentious" is applicable. Cheers. ] (]) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :ArbCom as forumshopping, that's funny.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is exactly what it was. ] (]) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| Does an administrator want to touch this issue? ] expressed surprise that this has been able to go on as long as it has. Ubikwit has already been warned in the previous AN/I thread but the behavioral problems have not subsided. Just to recap: we have now had two threads on AN/I, two RfCs, one declined ArbCom case, one BLP/N thread and ''nobody'' has voiced support for Ubikwit's edits. He edit-warred and attempted to reinsert contentious material into the BLP ''16 times''. There is a detailed account of Ubikwit's <s>bad behavior</s> personal attacks in the subsection of the thread linked at the top, this was compiled after Robert McClenon warned him. Ubikwit has failed to interpret basic policy correctly; besides the obvious DUE, BRD, CONSENSUS and NPOV issues, he accused Jweiss11 of ] for . He has also claimed that practically everybody on the talk page is lacking ]. After previously being warned here that this was a content dispute in the first thread, he took this to ArbCom where it was declined for (among other reasons) being a content dispute; then he projects his ] onto others.] (]) 18:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The topic involves current events involving religion, violence and a bit of contention. That alone will ward off a lot of volunteers from getting involved, but it isn't as bad as some of the issues above. Anyone? ] (]) 18:54, 24 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. | |||
| ===Misrepresenting sources and other editors=== | |||
| First of all, I was not warned in the above-linked AN/I thread, so LM2000 is simply repeating the lie to that effect from his statement at the request for arbitration statement]. {{ping|Robert McClenon}} suggested that the thread be closed with a warning to me before I responded to the concerns and posted more details about a couple of problematic editing issues. The thread was not closed, and calls for a BOOMERANG ignored. | |||
| Xenophrenic continues to flaunt ] with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit reverting to his preferred version including [[WP:PEACOCK|peacocky}} paraphrasing based on a one-off comment in a non-mainstream source, and a self-serving one-off quote from a primary source. The mainstream view is obfuscated by the text. | |||
| {{user|Jweiss11}}'s disposition toward advocacy on this article is revealed by the contradictions in his statement at the request for arbitration, which I briefly characterized in relation to his repeated removal of criticisms based on the political ramifications of Harris statements because he ]. | |||
| Regarding Collect's allegation of forumshopping at ArbCom, note that {{ping|NativeForeigner}} has indicated that he would be willing to look at this in that forum should the community processes fail to resolve the dispute. So I'm back here at AN/I working through the community channels, but the request was not seen as frivolous, just premature. I should hope that there would be some input from uninvolved admins here soon on this second AN/I thread.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Three uninvolved users told you that you brought a content dispute to AN/I, Robert McClenon described your behavior as a "tantrum" and suggested you receive a strong warning. He also regarding your behavior on BLP issues. You and continued to edit war and dump massive amounts of contentious material into the BLP.] (]) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You are arguing semantics. That first AN/I thread should have been a wake-up call and unfortunately it was not.] (]) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The statement I made in requesting arbitration is . | |||
| ::{{reply|LM2000}} An alert regarding discretionary sanctions is not a warning. Your comment at ArbCom read, ''"Robert McClenon described the scene as a "tantrum" and ended up giving Ubikwit a warning"'', which seems to link the comment in the AN/I thread with the "warning" per the recommendation made early in the thread. | |||
| ::Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context. First, Jonotrain inserted the Sayeed quote, as follows. | |||
| ::{{talkquote|According to Greenwald, Harris relies on this view of Islam to justify torture, anti-Muslim profiling, and the Israeli occupation. Greenwald sees the double standard in Harris' writings as a symptom of ]: "...he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism." <u>Theodore Sayeed, another critic of Harris, also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."</u>}} | |||
| ::Second, When I moved the quote to the Political section, it was prefaced by the following text, which presented a balanced view of the debate in accord with NPOV. | |||
| ::{{talkquote|Writing for Truthdig, Harris stated<blockquote>It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism."</blockquote>}} | |||
| ::{{talkquote|On his blog, Harris states<blockquote>I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.</blockquote>}} | |||
| ::{{talkquote|He then says "if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state".}} | |||
| ::Third, I replaced the text with the following quote after the BLP/N thread, even though that thread found no BLP issue with it. | |||
| ::{{talkquote|In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics".}} | |||
| ::Fourth, it was me that removed the racism allegation from the lead, even though there are a number of sources supporting the allegation with respect to statements on profiling, etc. that Harris has made. The I started this thread and commented on {{user|Steeletrap}}'s UT page after Steeletrap re-added it to the lead./br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Attempts to dismiss peer-reviewed history book''' | |||
| ::Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.</br> | |||
| :@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Second Quantization}} does same, making incoherent claim about paraphrasing, misunderstanding NPOV and RS.</br> | |||
| ::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::], SQ continues to push ill-informed POV; apparently, he couldn't take the time to check the links I provided to Palgrave’s website, asserting that the title of the book was ''“controversial”''. </br> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| ::Finally, SQ falsely accuses me (“No offence”) of BLP violations, because he ] what the RS say (aside from the fact that he mischaracterizes my edits), but refuses to take claims to BLP/N. ]. </br> | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| ::Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi, attempting to dismiss another source by an professor of history, and grossly misrepresenting my edits at the same time, while also stating<blockquote>''That is fine information for the ] article, and I don't disagree with Lears' assertion that there were elements of positivism at the core of social Darwinism, scientific racism and emperialism in the nineteenth century. I'll work to paraphrase it if I ever edit that article and see a need to introduce that information''. </blockquote> | |||
| ::An RS/N thread had to be opened to prove that the book is a peer-reviewed monograph.</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:40, 25 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
| :::I don't mind so much having to repeatedly correct Ubikwit's misrepresentation of sources, it's part of the job as a volunteer editor. I should not, however, have to keep correcting his misrepresentations about what I've said or done: | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::{{xt|Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit}} | |||
| ::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, check the edit and see that it was a simple BRD revert with a note directing you to the Talk page where that text was already being discussed - no flaunting involved. You are welcome to criticize my edits all you want, but you need not outright lie, Ubikwit. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::{{xt|Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context.}} | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| :::No "false allegations" cited by you in your comment, I see. That is typical. The issue you partially described was indeed long-ago resolved when it was discovered that you had taken a Harris quote out of context by cleverly omitting his disclaimer to the reader that the quote you repeated would sound "paradoxical" and that he was actually still "undecided" on that issue. And the BLP/N thread did ''not'' support your use of the Mondoweiss text. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::{{xt|Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.}} | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::You need not outright lie, Ubikwit. Anyone who reads my response, which you linked, will see that rather than dismiss the source, I asked: '''What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here?''' I did point out that the book was a critique of atheism written by a priest, and had never been cited, but rather than "dismiss" the book, I urged you to continue with your proposal to use the source. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::{{xt|Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi...}} | |||
| :::::{{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) | |||
| :::Again with the lies, Ubikwit? That one is so blatant, you didn't even attempt to substantiate it. Your does the insinuation. Here is exactly what I said about it from the article Talk page: | |||
| ::::::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). | |||
| ::::<small>here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: '''New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, positivism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here)'''. Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law.</small> | |||
| ::::::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. | |||
| :::Lies don't work, Ubikwit. ] (]) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::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. — ] ] 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) | |||
| ::I think your statement about what I said is utterly bizarre (you do know that people can click and see what I wrote right?). This has been your approach in some of the things I have noticed: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::1. You get a book that agrees with your point of view. | |||
| :::2. You don't mention it's written by a priest (in the discussion or the article) or that the book is ''just'' published. The book is also clearly for a popular audience as anyone can see from skimming it, it is not a normal academic monograph, even if it is peer reviewed (books for a popular audience are peer reviewed too). | |||
| :::3. You choose to include the most inflammatory statement you can find in the book and provide no context at all in the wikipedia article. | |||
| ::Further, | |||
| :::4. ... and accusing someone of denialism (rather than say just being bad at history) in your title ''is'' controversial. | |||
| :::Also, separately, what's most bizarre is that you seem to see no issue with adding statements which attempt to link someone with racism by association. Including that quote by Lear is ''clearly'' problematic. ] (]) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{reply|Second Quantization}} The book is a peer-reviewed publication by an academic press by a career professor of history (forty years). | |||
| *: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) | |||
| :::That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians", a group to which he specifically refers in the opening paragraph of the Intro and which includes Jackson Lears. | |||
| *::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) | |||
| :::The title of the book and the statements it makes are not inherently "controversial" among mainstream historians. There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception. The book is a monograph on a very specific topic, your baseless assertion that it is "for a popular audience" is only indicative of the fact that you are a member of the so-called "popular audience", and your attempt to dismiss the per-reviewed book because of its author's religious affiliation is tendentious. I have mentioned competence to you for these reasons, as I see your training is in the applied sciences. Note that neither you nor any other supporters of Harris have produced a single peer-reviewed source supporting any of your groundless opinions. I, on the other hand, happen to have an academic background in history. | |||
| :::Linking the ideas espoused by someone with an ideology that "gave rise to" scientific racism and imperialism" is a fully valid criticism made by more than one RS and supported by mainstream historians. Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack. Next time, raise the issue at BLP/N, per policy. Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence. I would never do the same on an article dealing with physics. | |||
| :::And is a personal attack.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 04:24, 07:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — ] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"''Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack.''" That's a bit rich coming from the guy who is claiming I'm incompetent because I'm not a professional historian. Are you claiming to be a professional historian? Do you think we all need to be professional historians or else we are automatically incompetent? Does merely disagreeing with your use of sources make someone automatically incompetent? Does having studied history mean you are suddenly bias free? "''Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence''" You might want to look before you blab away about incompetence, because I haven't actually edited the particular source under discussion one way or the other. | |||
| *: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) | |||
| ::::"'' There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception.''" That's what you are meant to do '''before''' trying to stick a source in an article. Your problem is you are trying to stick the sources in '''before''' we've seen it's impact, which is what I stated from the very beginning, ] (]) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context. | |||
| *: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. | |||
| ::::...and FYI on another point you keep ignoring. You say "''That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians""'' but you simply aren't using the book for ''any'' historical fact in the article at all. You are using the source to insinuate that someone is a denialist without bothering to put in any reason why that conclusion follows at all. You are defending the reliability of the historical content of the book but you aren't using any of the historical content of the book. ] (]) 14:02, 26 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). | |||
| :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>. · · · ] ]: 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, · · · ] ]: 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=== | |||
| :::::You should ]. Don't misrepresent my edits, even if you don't understand them. Painter is a secondary source for Lears (on Harris), first of all. Both of them are "mainstream historians", academics. Note the quote from Harris; Painter is also a secondary source on Harris. You are correct that I don't use anything more specific from Painter, because I would want to read the book first, but he is useful for prefacing and supporting statements by Lears on Harris, and putting those in perspective. | |||
| Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{talkquote|Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book ''The New Atheist Denial of History'', stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.<ref> The New Atheist Denial of History Borden W. Painter Jr, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 145-6</ref> Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book{{cquote|''If history reveals any categorical truth, it is that an insufficient taste for evidence regularly brings out the worst in us.</br>--Sam Harris''|}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::::and then states that<blockquote> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::his abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.</blockquote>}}</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view. | |||
| :::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Mgtow definition == | |||
| ::::::Ubikwit. You are battling away with multiple editors and then tell me to drop the stick. You should step back and maybe get some perspective. I made some pretty normal observations (some of which you appear to concede such as the book lacking critical response while not admitting I raised it in the first place) and your response was to become completely unreasonable and start attacking me, ] (]) 09:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::::Nonsense. You started the attacking, and tendentiously insisted that the book was not a monograph, it was not peer-reviewed, the author is a priest, etc. | |||
| There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". | |||
| :::::::The peer-reviewed academic book does not require "critical response" before being used. | |||
| The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You have continually attempted to ]. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ] ] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ] ] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"insisted that the ... the author is a priest". Eh? Are you claiming that the author is not in fact a priest? The fact is, it isn't a academic monograph as is obvious to anyone looking at it except you seemingly. User {{reply|Xenophrenic}} already rang them and they didn't confirm it was peer reviewed. Why was that do you think, if everything they do is peer reviewed as you claimed? ... and yes, we do wait for critical response to literature often, particularly where controversial so we can judge due weight. You said you were ready to ring Palgrave to see if the book was a monograph or not before Ubikwit, so maybe it's best if you do that for your own sake, ] (]) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| :::::::::OK, now you misrepresent the in which you finally admitted that you</br>''"have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content"'', insisting that you ''"simply doubt it's an academic monograph"'', despite the fact that ], an uninvolved admin, had concluded that is was a monograph, and that and {{ping|Margin1522}}, also uninvolved, had weighed in positively as well. | |||
| :::::::::Xenophrenic also ] Abedcedare's initial statement and continued to insist that the book was not peer-reviewed, to which Abecedare replied<blockquote>''...some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.''</blockquote> | |||
| :::::::::And I never said I would call Palgrave, but it seemed that was what you were tendentiously demanding.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. You do realize everything you say can be easily looked up and checked, right? I have never ignored a statement of Abecedare's. ] (]) 16:02, 28 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. | |||
| ====The Nazi allegation regarding ] article==== | |||
| He did so in a misplaced comment, on the RS/N thread, so I missed it.<blockquote>''this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism)''</blockquote>Content disputes are content disputes, but misrepresenting a source in that manner, invoking ], is extremely tendentious, and so I'm going to post the relevant passages from Lears.{{talkquote|Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.”</br>…Two world wars, the systematic slaughter of innocents on an unprecedented scale, the proliferation of unimaginably destructive weapons, brushfire wars on the periphery of empire—all these events involved, in various degrees, the application of scientific research to advanced technology. All showed that science could not be elevated above the agendas of the nation-state: the best scientists were as corruptible by money, power or ideology as anyone else, and their research could as easily be bent toward mass murder as toward the progress of humankind. Science was not merely science. The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. Eugenics had become another tool in the hands of unrestrained state power.}}</br> | |||
| Incidentally, I've already referred, at Talk and , to this response by Harvard professor ], who quotes almost the exact same passage that I did above, in its entirety in his article, with the preface<blockquote>''This passage, from a 2011 review in The Nation of three books by Sam Harris by the historian Jackson Lears, makes the standard case for the prosecution by the left.''</blockquote>There are more secondary sources on Lears than Painter, but Painter, like Lears, is an academic and a mainstream historian.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| :As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. | |||
| :::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ::I'm not the one that needs the tea. | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| ::Xenophrenic's repeated attempts to dismiss these sources (both Lears and Painter) against policy and across multiple forums is the height of tendentiousness. | |||
| *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pinker's characterization makes it eminently clear that Lears' presentation of the <u>"standard case"</u> is a mainstream view among academic historians, such as Painter. | |||
| *::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Invoking Godwin's law against a mainstream scholar to dismiss a source that has cites in multiple high-quality secondary sources blatantly contravenes core policies. Xenophrenic should be blocked for his personal attacks (accusing me of "lying", etc.) and topic banned for this continuing string of offenses, including violations of ], ], ] and ].--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 05:38, 15:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. Cite just one instance where "Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss sources against policy and across multiple forums", rather than discussing the sources in the context of how you plan to use them, as policy dictates. Your Lears source brought up Nazi's (see Godwin's Law), Ubikwit, not me; I just quoted him. Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. You know I will call you on every instance of fabrication. ] (]) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (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) | |||
| :Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick review of Lears book review shows that he has indeed tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science: | |||
| ::<small>''Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. one cannot deny that embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.</small> | |||
| :Would you like me to now quote the insinuation you proposed to introduce into the Harris BLP from that source for good measure? ] (]) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I said at the Talk page, it was you that invoked Godwin's law, as a false pretense to dismiss a source. | |||
| ::Quote away, by all means. | |||
| ::Xenophrenic stated<blockquote>''you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did.''</blockquote>which misrepresents the source as well as my edit. | |||
| ::Xenophrenic stated<blockquote>''Collect, here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: '''New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, posivitism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century <u>Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here).''' Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law</u><small(underlining added)</small>.''</blockquote> | |||
| ::Xenophrenic falsely claims statement used from Beattie was "defamatory" in an attempt to dismiss policy-compliant text based on a source by an academic with many citations in the secondary literature. | |||
| ::Xenophrenic asserts that Painter's book was . Those are two inapplicable assertions, one simply being wrong and the other irrelevant, aimed at dismissing a higher-quality source than anything the ] have produced. Since the text I'd proposed had already been deleted (with the Political section) and was known to Xenophrenic, the query pertaining to that was a diversion. If not,the specific text should have been addressed, not the false assertion that the text was not peer-reviewed or the fact that the academic historian was also a lay priest. | |||
| ::Your misrepresentation of Eskow has already been diffed (previous ANI thread).--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<small>{{xt|Ubikwit, you still appear to misunderstand the nature of the disagreements here. As a result, you are doing a lot of arguing for or against things which aren't in contention. Perhaps it would help if we cleared a few things up first. While Harris may be considered a "new atheist", not everything written about new atheists automatically applies to him. There is a whole separate article for generalizations about New Atheists. Likewise, when writers like Lears say that the atheist's plea to rely on science instead of religion sounds like "positivism", and then further goes on to say, "Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism ... scientific racism ... imperialism ... eugenics ... Nazis ... yada yada", you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did. And if you want to discuss positivism, there is an article for that. Using a three-step synthesis to justify inserting "racism" into an article about a living person is a violation of BLP (as well as WP:SYNTH, WP:V and others). Thirdly, you asked, "If it is POV, then where is the countervailing material with respect to which you seem to be claiming I am being non-neutral? The burden is not on me to provide such material." -- No. You do not get to insert "Professor QQQ said Harris beats his wife", just because you found it in a book, and then demand editors add "countervailing material" to the contentious claim. It simply does not get added to the article in the first place. You also do not get to insert the allegation into a separate section you made when other sources (or Harris himself) already refute the allegation elsewhere in the article. If you'd like to add information of legitimate encyclopedic value to the reader, propose the text and source. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)}}</small> | |||
| :::Have you listened to yourself, Ubikwit? Your lying isn't working here because these past discussions are recorded in the edit history for all to see. And repeating your lies over and over again will not make them truths. I see you are now retrying the "Xenophrenic invoked Godwin's Law to dismiss a source" ploy again. Readers already discovered that it was <u>your</u> source that mentioned Nazis and the Holocaust, and I merely quoted your source. Perhaps you are now aiming for a less perceptive audience whom you hope will not review the actual discussion? How's that working out for you? Next, you say I misrepresent your edit and your Lears source, but you can't hide the discussion which reveals your deception. Anyone who checks can see that your Lears source first asserts that "positivism" resulted in Nazi eugenics and scientific racism, then Lears immediately follows that with the assertion that Harris (and New Atheists) employ positivism. Now look at your edit. No misrepresentation at all; and to date you have failed to address the concerns of editors about that material. If you are so determined to paint a living person as a racist, don't you think you should produce more substantive sourcing for that? Next you claim "Xenophrenic falsely claims statement used from Beattie was defamatory". No, Xenophrenic did not. That was Jweiss11. Your lying doesn't work here, Ubikwit, because all of these discussions are recorded in the edit history. Remember? All I did (as shown in the link you provided but you hoped no one would click) was correct your false assertion that once you "attribute" a defamatory statement, it magically ceases to be defamatory. Next, you claim Xenophrenic "aimed at dismissing a higher-quality source", which is false. Anyone who reads the link you provided discovers that rather than "dismiss" your source, I qualified it and engaged you in discussion over how to use it: ''"What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here?"'' Your lies don't work here, Ubikwit. Why not spend just a fraction of that energy on collaboration with your fellow editors? ] (]) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]: '''Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.''' ] (]) 16:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you, Xenophrenic, your posts should enable others to more readily comprehend the situation.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ===deliberately violating an apparent RfC consensus=== | |||
| ] appears to me to show a clear consensus. Six editors !voted against using a source which was used for: ''Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."'' | |||
| This edit re-added the source and added claims in Misplaced Pages's voice (changes bolded). | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :''Some commentators have '''asserted that Harris's criticisms exhibit prejudice<ref> Politics and Religion in the New Century: Philosophical Reflections, Philip Andrew Quadrio, Sydney University Press, 2009, p.13</ref> and intolerance, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. After the attacks on the World Trade Center<ref> "Author Chris Hedges: “The new atheists are secular fundamentalists”, by Wajahat Ali, June 29, 2008</ref>, Harris '''broadened his critical focus on Islam, which has resulted in death threats.''' Some critics equate his focus on Islam and advocacy of policies such as profiling of Muslims and support for torture '''with ]. Harris and others have''' said his critics '''misuse the term '''in''' an attempt to silence criticism.<ref name="Indi1">; ''The Independent''; April 12, 2013</ref>'''<nowiki><ref> "Sam Harris, torture, quotation", Andrew Brown, The Guardian, August 8, 2009</ref><ref>End of Profiling: Letter to Sam Harris, Letter to Sam Harris, Michael Mungai, Huffingtong Post, July 1, 2012</ref><ref>Sam Harris in full: court intellectual, mystic, and supporter of the Iraq war, Theodore Sayeed, Mondoweiss, Septemeber 4, 2012</ref><ref> Sam Harris, Will You Visit A Mosque With Me?, Chris Stedman, Huffington Post, July 2, 2012</ref></nowiki> ''' | |||
| :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. | |||
| Note the fact references include the disallowed Sayeed source which we had a specific RfC on, an ] commentary labeled as such, a HuffPo "blog letter" from ], and a nice screed by ] also a HuffPo blog letter. The other refs added are found through a google search for "Sam Harris" and "bias" but which unfortunately does not make the claim the editor wished for, and (Aside: I love the really useful quote in it "''Last question, Chris. Something on a hopeful note. You’ve been a reporter who actually has lived in the Middle East and actually talked to Muslims and seen them first hand. You have this rich tradition of learning Christianity, Christian morals, Christian ethics and seen the rise of the American Christian fascist movement. What can be done, on a global scale, perhaps, for Muslims and Christians – well intentioned ones – to wrest away the control of their religiosity and religions by self interested political individuals, like the ones you’ve mentioned. What can be done to reclaim the faith?"'') a pure blog post by ]. ] fails RS as it is specifically " the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs." ], ] each finding that the blogs are not RS, but depend on if the persons are notable. In the case at hand, the answer is "no". | |||
| 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. | |||
| So we have deliberate violation of apparent consensus, and use of a source specifically disallowed, and use of sources for contentious claims made in Misplaced Pages's voice using "commentary" and editorial opinion columns. I suggest that we have a problem here. ] (]) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits. | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The RFC is ''specifically'' centered around the quote from Sayeed, which Ubikwit did not restore in any form. What's the problem? –] (] ⋅ ]) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** Sayeed was not notable per most (5 of the six) opinions at the RfC. ] (]) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***If you want to achieve consensus to leave out the citation, you should start a new RFC that asks that question. –] (] ⋅ ]) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****If you wish to start a debating society as to whether when 5 out of 6 people ''say'' the person is not notable whether that conversation is not actually part of the RfC but should be made a ''separate RfC'' to establish that it is the opinion of 5 out of 6 of those people, then that is a wondrously byzantine argument. Cheers ] (]) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's readily apparent where the byzantine arguments are coming from. What is the policy for people that know the rules but feign ingnoramance?--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:05, 25 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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yet another revert at : | |||
| ::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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) | |||
| Retains blog post from Patheos for which the apparent quote from a notable person would be "''I mean Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. He has a long defense of torture. Christopher Hitchens is an apologist for pre-emptive war and also speaks in the crude, racist terms that Harris uses to describe 1 billion people – one fifth of the world’s population.''" which is used as a cite for an apparent claim of fact "After the attacks on the World Trade Center"(ref). As a source for that phrase, the blog fails, but it seems primarily centered on a quite inadmissible opinion of Hedges which would not be allowed in any BLP except absolutely cited as the ''opinion only of Hedges''. It offers no actual support to the phrase for which it is used as a cite. It also reinstates the two HuffPo blog posts which do not actually support the claims of fact made. Adding specifically problematic sources to any BLP, after one has been told they are problematic, I find troubling indeed. ] (]) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. ] (]) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j == | |||
| :Collect, you took Sayeed to BLP/N, receiving a "no BLP violation". Now you are asserting that it is not RS? | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :And the column of ] (also on the editorial board) and the individuals with official blogs on Guardian and Huffington Post are not RS for opinion? | |||
| The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You failed to wikilink ], who is also (block)quoted by Greenwald in the Guardian<blockquote>''"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.''</blockquote>. Hedges' book (academic press) might be a good source, and here's another interview from Salon. | |||
| :It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :And the Patheos interview was not used to source "bias". I eliminated "bias", using "prejudice" instead, because there's a peer-reviewed source by an academic, quoting "Dr. Peter Slezak is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New South Wales".--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| ===Violations of ], non-stop tendentious reverting and gaming=== | |||
| *{{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. | |||
| Please check in the Talk page, and the related edits/reverts.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and . | |||
| ===4RR - and the complainant Ubikwit above is the blatant Edit Warrior - will someone take action finally? === | |||
| Note: | |||
| 15:48 25 Feb clear revert | |||
| 3:49 26 Feb clear revert | |||
| 8:56 et seq 26 Feb clear reverts | |||
| 11:49 26 Feb clear revert | |||
| Making absolutely clear 4RR within 20 hours when he is making complaints here about the edits of others! | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Will someone finally stop this edit warrior - this is well beyond risible behaviour. He wants this dealt with at AN/I per a number of posts <g> so he can not assert he does not know his own behaviour here is fully actionable. ] (]) 13:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you serious? The first diff is me deleting my own insertion of a source because you objected to it. | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The assertion that that is a revert would appear to be another attempt to ]. | |||
| ::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The last two diffs are removing promotional, primary-sourced blocks of text and general cleaning up of bloat and copy editing the article, not reversions. I suggest you read the edit summaries, for starters: ''"remove excessive amount of primary source-based material"'', ''"ce, removed primary-sourced UNDUE material and quote-mined phrase from Independent article"''. | |||
| :I, too, would be interested to hear an admin's assessment of these edits regarding the revert policy. </br> | |||
| --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:28, 26 February; 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| :OTOH, you appear to keep altering your posts here. Hare to reply to an ever-moving target. ] (]) 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, it's the other way around. Your constinual string of diversionary tactics, that is, require continual responses; thus, copy editing hastily typed replies.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===and yes there's more!=== | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] is in ''Category:9/11 conspiracy theories''. | |||
| ::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible. | |||
| :For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ] ]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 == | |||
| Ubikwit has repeatedly made major edits and reverted after his edits have been questioned. The last such edit is which re-re-adds a "table" which had been removed as ] in the past, and remains ]. It is also violative of ] although the editor asserts that ] is his policy reasoning. The "table" even wikilinks people ''already wikilinked'' in the article, makes claims about them which are not sourced in the article, makes a connection by use of a table which is not warranted, and asserts that the people are involved in a conspiracy to involve the US in a war, where the article also includes the theory that 9/11 was deliberately sought by the group. | |||
| {{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editing ] == | |||
| I consider allegations that people are involved in ''any'' conspiracy require exceedingly strong sourcing. That any article which includes any assertions that the group deliberates sought out the 9/11 events is contentious. And that use of a table to make "connections" is improper, SYNTH ,and violative of ] and ]. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion. | |||
| ] shows a prior discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 09:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 | |||
| :Thanks for saving me the trouble by posting the link to the BLP/N discussion where consensus was against you and you demurred to respond to the final question and defend your baseless assertions of SYNTH. That was the first of two BLP/N string related to that article with respect to which the policy-based consensus was against you. Yes, now you have two simultaneous threads in parallel at because I have cautioned you about crying BLP and raising the same claims again, but you did that anyway at .--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Weird -- I suppose your Misplaced Pages edition is on a ''different server'' than mine. I find, alas, that people who insist they "won" a discussion anywhere have an interesting Weltanschauung. I, alas, find that linking living persons to wishing genocide, even cautiously worded, is an affront. ] (]) 17:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consensus is consensus when it's in accord with policy. | |||
| :::As for the rest of your comment, I'll leave that for others to analyze.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy | |||
| ===Close this now?=== | |||
| ". . . blatant Edit Warrior - will someone take action finally?" — Collect. | |||
| Someone did: Collect has now been blocked for edit warring; also Ubikwit. So perhaps there's no longer any need for an admin to decide about page protection at the Sam Harris (author) article as requested by the OP, and this can be closed. ] (]) 23:22, March 2, 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Based on his ] comments, ] may have thoughts to share here, so I would hold off closing for now. But I do think if no one else comments here in the next 12 hours or so, a non-Admin can close this if an Admin hasn't already... --] (]) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Am I alone in thinking we should discuss an interaction ban between Ubikwit and Collect? They seem to have a very long and very hostile relationship that certainly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. I think it's not only warranted but overdue. That was the main thing I took from my review at ANEW. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 03:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So far as disruptive edit warring is concerned, the blocks are all that's needed pro tem—it's implicitly clear what will happen if C and U get into it again. There's no pressing need for an IBAN. If others want to discuss it, perhaps they could wait until the blocks have expired or been appealed and lifted. C and U might want to give voluntary undertakings that would allay possible concerns about future disruption. Come to think of it, they could do that at their talk pages. ] (]) 13:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *{{vandal|Hmarskiy II}} 1. Malicious editing with a long past history of outright vandalism to the article of ] - a musical group - the ongoing activity spanning several years now; 2. Most recently, the user copies and pastes my own editing/restoring remarks at the end of his persistent reverts, and continues to insert controversial and unsubstantiated information into the article, despite being advised not to on numerous occasions; 3. The user may be a paid member with a conflict of interests, as the his past edits attest to persistent inclusion of promotional material into the band's wiki page; 4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is a former anon user who created a userid with the sheer purpose to circumvent the protected status of the page in order to continue his disruptive editing. Please intervene. ] (]) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Lionscitygl}} Please notify the user in question on ] using <code><nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki>]<nowiki>|thread=User:Hmarskiy II}}</nowiki></code>. Thank you! <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was attempted long ago. Intervention is requested. ] (]) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Before I the notice on their talk page, the only other content of the talk page was a . . of the article in question. As well, the accusation that the account was created for the purpose of circumventing the protection, just look at the earliest of Hmarskiy II. They are from 2010, <strike>hardly a ''recent'' issue</strike>. And, after the protection was , their edits to the article did not start until . I do not see any current attempt to contact the editor '''at all''', except in edit summaries, which is not acceptable. | |||
| :::::I just found AIV report on Hmarskiy II. Please have patience, though, from my knowledge of AIV, it will be turned down quickly. | |||
| ::::All and all, this just seems to be a content dispute mixed with ] issues. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Orduin, thank you for looking into the this. Prior to alerting you of the matter, I've had an ample of opportunity to familiarize myself with the contributions from the said user. So, let's be clear on that. Also, please re-read what the word "recent" refers to in the context. With all the due respect, if you have multiple individuals/accounts trying to push absolutely the same controversial line of thrust both in style and presentation (which alludes to their "possible" association), are you honestly going to be expected to address every single one of them... anew? After all, one does not have to begin editing right away after a certain implementation took place on the page... especially if its "predecessor" was working in the exact same venue. And if I didn't follow certain wiki guidelines - no such oversight was intended on my part. ] (]) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::1. Look at your fix other people's edits (not just mine) without argument - an impression that you are a real vandal. 2. My information is confirmed by the source to which you deliberately do not pay attention. 3. All sources that you're not interested perceived as advertising. 4. Where argument that I am a former customer? Empty words and no more. ] (]) 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm not sure if I'm really expected to address the above... creativity, but I will do so this time as a matter of courtesy - something that I do not expect reciprocity on. 1. I think this isn't the first time I've been accused of being "a real vandal" for dealing with a member of that pack. Defense by means of aggression is not the newest invention these days... 2. That is exactly the point of it: "the source", as in conflict of interest. 3. No, not all, but it is heavy on advertising nevertheless. 4. It's a great day today. Sure. ] (]) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Can we have some more opinions on this please? <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I would suggest formal warnings be issued, most likely for edit warring. Then, if offenses continue, blocks may be properly issued. Any other ideas here? <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 22:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Orduin, while you're waiting, looks like somebody does not waste their time on that page. Since he is back to his usual ploy, I'll revert it this time, but unless some measures are taken, this circus is likely to continue on. And that's exactly why I requested assistance - to intervene in this flaccid idiocy. ] (]) 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{facepalm}} I forgot to check the sources he cited in the changes.... They are completely unacceptable. I will add a ] to their talkpage, as this has been going on for awhile. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's OK, Orduin. :) Glad you did check them, as that was the whole point. So, by all means, thanks. ] (]) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| (nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Lionscitygl}} If you see further disruptive behavior from this editor (and please be sure the edits constitute as ]; counts, ''does not''), notify someone through this thread, or report to ]. If you report to AIV, please be sure to note the that was given. Thank you <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::: Orduin, thank you once again for all your input. I'll keep you posted if the issue persists. Btw, I hope you notice that he absolutely has no interest in participating in this discussion with you other than taking direct pot shots at me... all while still being hell bent at pushing his promotional "directives". Kind of ironic... yet expected. ] (]) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Lionscitygl}} Idiocy is when one person writes incorrect information without sources, but he prevents other edit calling it vandalism. Lionscitygl, where your sources that confirm the disputed information? Why did you add information without sources and defend it? ] (]) 03:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: FYI, you just confirmed yet again that you a parrot by parroting after me, as you did with my previous post (e.g. idiocy) and as you were doing in your edit summaries of your reverts, and by parroting after your predecessors by using identically baseless distortions. Not only that, more importantly, you just ''admitted'' to having a conflict of interest in the article of topic. You see, you just reiterated verbatim the same accusations that were voiced by the members of the said cohort at the time the page went into protection, about 5 years ago or so. However, you ''intentionally'' fail to mention that most of my edits to the article were also among the removed material... and remain off of the article! Mine are off, not yours. Yet, evidently, it was not enough to the likes of you. Though I could, to this day I have not reinserted any of "my information" back in the article where it rightfully belongs, whereas someone like yourself is tirelessly trying to ''incrementally'' alter the page to a certain "correct" interpretation which is... nothing more than a mere promotion. ] (]) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks == | |||
| ==] == | |||
| {{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{archivetop|status=closed|result=Closed per request of original filer et. al. <small>]</small> 18:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}} | |||
| ::''(Retitled from accusatory, non-neutral "Catflap08 ignoring what I say and abusing RFD, and seems to have serious CIR issues", per ] --]]] 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC))'' | |||
| *] | |||
| :::''Revert. ] is for '''article talk pages''', where, indeed, threads about particular users are generally a bad thing. ANI is for repirting user problems, and the assertion that it is inappropriate to give another's username in the title of a tread '''about that user''' is ridiculous. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::::wp:Talknew includes: "Never use headings to attack other users". --]]] 05:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|Catflap08}} has been displaying serious ] and ] issues on the ] and ] articles. After trying to cite the fringe theory that Kenji was a nationalist in the lead of that article and , he recently started trying to add the words to the lead with the of readers clicking the link and reading his unbalanced and poorly written article that describes the lay Buddhist group solely in terms of the politics of its nationalist founder. | |||
| Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock? | |||
| I recently noticed that in fact his article on Kokuchukai was regarding the founding date. I the earlier refs because I ] Catflap had consulted these sources and got his factually inaccurate information there. He the sources without changing the dates and then on the talk page that the sources actually had no connection to the material they were attached to. He has also violated ]'s requirement for an accurate, neutral summary on three separate occasions in this dispute. | |||
| There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| But now he has gone a step further by explicitly adding sources to the Kenji article unrelated to the material, solely to troll me. I'd like to request a TBAN on Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, although given that this user has admitted to attaching sources to statements they don't support on purpose, and doesn't seem to understand why that's wrong, a CIR block might be appropriate. | |||
| .I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following: | |||
| : Since I filed an RfC on both cases I will wait for the outcome of that. Please also note in the case of deleting references ]. Some of the comments you left are close to personal attacks btw. --] (]) 13:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019. | |||
| ::::For what it's worth, the original title by {{U|Hijiri88}} was itself a personal attack, in my opinion, which got repeated in every edit summary from edits in this section so far. I just retitled this section per ]. --]]] 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month. | |||
| ::Which comments? ―] ] 13:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear. | |||
| :::Being called “stubborn”, Clumsy, having a “plan”, “sneaking” information into articles, unable to listen, “poorly-written article”, this tone in my mind is aggresive and close to personal attack - not there yet but close. Please note that nobody denies (including mentioning the Kokuchukai issue in Miyazawa’s translations) the guy’s membership in the organisation. I originally reverted the deletion of the user in question that made reference to Miyazawa’s membership in Kokuchokai – as the lede is also about summarising the context of the article. He then went on in the article on Kokuchukai. The issue about Miyazawa being called a nationalist was settled in June 2014. --] (]) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks. | |||
| ::::Note the lack of diffs. Catflap wants to hide the context of those quotes because it portrays him in an even worse light than my diffs above. Note also how I've had to indent Catflap's response to ] for him; this is another recurring pattern and adds to the impression that he is ignoring people. ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Well in my books your comments are out there in the respective talk pages including your “plan”-theory. I made my point clear more than once. A) your deletion of mentioning the guy’s membership in the lede. B) You questioning the article on the organisation he was member of c) The nature of the organisation today is irrelevant to what the organisation was like when he joined c) continuously deleting references. Secondly due to experience I tend to seek a RfC these days first.--] (]) 14:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse top|title=I already provided the diff above -- and -- but here it is again. Please, someone block this <del>jackass</del><u>jerk</u> for this ] skullduggery.}} | |||
| Okay, I'm getting kind of sick of you just ignoring the fact that I have provided clear and concise evidence that you explicated your own plan in December when you said This cannot be interpreted any other way, so I really wish you would start showing some courtesy and stop acting liking I'm spouting some crackpot accusation against you. You ''specifically'' said you wanted readers to click your wikilink and look at the article, and only a few days earlier you had , obviously for the same reason. As for questioning the article on the organization -- your wording implied it was formed from a merger of two previous organizations, but all the sources I can see say those two were just non-concurrent previous names for the same organization now called Kokuchukai, and the dates were also wrong -- I asked for an explanation, and ]. When you say ''the nature of the organisation today is irrelevant to what the organisation was like when he joined'' you are all but admitting that you are even now trying to continue to misrepresent Kenji as a "nationalist" just because he was a member of that group, even though no reliable sources make this claim, and you were . The only sources I deleted were unnecessary because other, better sources were already cited, and in the case of the Kokuchukai refs there was also the problem that you were (mis?)quoting those sources as saying something that wasn't accurate -- if I leave in refs after changing the material to which they were attached, that's a misrepresentation of sources, which is a serious no-no on Misplaced Pages. ] (<small>]]</small>) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| :I see nothing in this thread or complaint other than perhaps vindictiveness on the part of the original filer and perhaps a bit of harassment of the person agaibst whom the complaint has been filed. It appears that RfC, which is one of the suggested ways to deal with such complaints is being used. On that basis, I suggest that this thread be closed as requiring no action except, perhaps, a trout slapping to the original filer for apparently abusing ANI for no good purpose. ] (]) 15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: The user in question filed an RFC on whether the subject should be referred to as a "nationalist" because he was a member of the group ] last June, was opposed by seven other users, and dropped out for a few months. In December, he came back and tried to replace "he was a devout Buddhist" (wording used by virtually every reliable source on the topic) with "he was a member of the Kokuchukai" (wording that is hardly ever used outside of English Misplaced Pages as edited by Catflap). He explicitly stated on the talk page that he wanted readers to click the link to his own poorly-written, mostly OR article on the group (it appears he pulled a significant portion of the specifics "facts" out of thin air and attached sources that say something else). He stated himself that he thinks "a member of the Kokuchukai" is coterminous with "a nationalist". Therefore, his most recent RFC on the topic "should the lede call him a member of the Kokuchukai" is ] on the topic "should the lede call him a nationalist". He has outright ignored '''any''' attempt I have made to discuss '''any''' of this material with him on the talk page over the last eight months. He has also been grossly misrepresenting sources. I provided all the necessary diffs in the post above. ] (<small>]]</small>) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Was I just called a "jackass" ?--] (]) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe "jackass" was the wrong word, but you've been trying my patience about this issue ('''SERIOUSLY, WHY THE HELL CAN'T YOU READ OTHER PEOPLE'S TALKPAGE COMMENTS AND RESPOND RATIONALLY WITHOUT IMMEDIATELY RUNNING TO AN OR RFC!?''') every time it's come up over the past year. You need to stop '''NOW'''. ] (<small>]]</small>) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @ ] An RfC means a request for comment. It is up to my discretion when I fell that another opinion is needed. I do not plan to debate this for weeks on end. I reported your insult within this very discussion here . --] (]) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You are not free to constantly reopen closed RFCs on the same topic and slightly alter the wording each time so they look like new RFCs. ] (<small>]]</small>) 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Catflap's ] is boomeranging but ANI is where blocks are user behaviour complaints are supposed to be made. Over there ] said that he was behaving like a jackass and deserved to be called one, ] said that worse epithets were called for, and ] said that my use of foul language was not actionable but an IBAN might be called for. I don't think a mutual IBAN would be appropriate, since in this case I have not done anything wrong, merely tried to force Catflap to edit within the consensus that he himself brought about with his last RFD. A TBAN on the area in which Catflap has been editing disruptively (Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, both broadly construed) would solve the immediate problem of his disruptive editing and violation of ] and ], but is of broader concern. Now that I know Catflap edits contentiously in a broad range of articles I don't usually edit, an IBAN would prevent me from catching them. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{nonadmin}} This is ridiculous. The discussion on these articles have apparently been at RfC in the past, Catflap ''both'' discussions at ] (and incorrectly, because each discussion involved more than two editors), I the entries for that very reason...and finally, after I suggested on ''both'' talk pages to not ] ( ), Hijiri took this to ANI anyway? Maybe both of y'all need to stay away from the articles (or even the subject) for a while. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 07:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::...AAAAAAND it's also being done . (Forum-shopping in the ''same'' forum? Really?) '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Erpert}}: This is not a forum shop. I'm not asking for content input (the issue was firmly resolved last June/July). I'm asking for Catflap to be TBANned or blocked for tendentious editing (outright refusing to engage in discussion with users who disagree with him, posting a second RFC a few months after the first one on the same topic didn't go his way, violating ] by presenting inaccurate summaries in all three RFCs, misrepresenting sources...). I apologize if it looks like forum-shopping. I'm not the best at formatting ANI complaints. But any detailed analysis of the dispute will show Catflap violating consensus and engaging in what would uncontestibly be blockworthy behaviour if it was targeted at a Wikipedian more articulate than myself or an article on a well-known Hollywood actor or contemporary American politician rather than the niche area it is in. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As I said being insulted in not usual conduct here maybe times have changed. I personally do not see it forum shopping to seek an RfC. In the end I hope to get external input by experts on the matter. Additionally I find this due to the short history odd and this here even more strange it reminds me of ] a bit – but maybe I am wrong. At any rate I will see what the RfC does.--] (]) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Comments by Locke Cole == | |||
| @ ] Actually I find the advice by ] to stay away from the articles for a while quite reasonable in order to let things cool down and give others a chance to have an input. Why do you continue to edit within the article then? --] (]) 11:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :I never said an RfC in itself was forum-shopping, but going to RfC in the past; then 3O; then ''another'' RfC; then here (''twice'') ''is'' forum-shopping. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 14:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(EDIT CONFLICT -- first part of my comment might be redundant given Erpert's above response.) @]: What do you mean? You have posted on the talk page just as much as I, and if you are referring to refraining from ''editing the article itself'' then (1) I think that's a misinterpretation of Erpert's original advice (he was clearly talking about dropping the issue entirely and going off to edit in other areas for a while, something neither of us seem to be willing to do) and (2) I assume you are referring to I made to the Kenji article? Because I had thought that increasing the usage of the word ''Kokuchūkai'' in the article five times over, and providing a complete overview of how the subject is viewed in reliable scholarly sources that aren't particularly interested in Kenji's religious affiliation, sources linked to the specific organization in question, and sources that take your view that Kenji's affiliation with the group makes him a nationalist, would have qualified as a ''compromise'' on my part. I could blank the two paragraphs about the Kokuchūkai, if that would suit? | |||
| }} | |||
| :Anyway, this thread has ventured into ] territory without any meaningful input from outside parties, and Catflap has my attempts to find common ground and compromise. I think we can safely assume that (given the hot water certain admins appear to be in ] for actively stepping in, clicking on all the links, and unilaterally working out solutions) this thread will probably be archived without result. I'll keep trying to discuss on the talk pages after that, and if after a few more days things haven't improved we'll probably wind up back here. (I would ask any third party who happens to be reading this '''not''' to make the same mistake as ] and ] apparently made in assuming that this was a content issue involving several users on two talk pages. It isn't. The content issues were resolved months ago, and now the one user who didn't get the content solution they wanted is behaving ]. So it most certainly belongs on ANI, not DRN or RFC or any of the relevant WikiProjects...) | |||
| :] (<small>]]</small>) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The problems here can and I think reasonably should be resolved through the dispute resolution process, possibly at DRN. I would suggest that those involved make more of an effort to get other individuals involved in the discussion, as there could perhaps be questions of bias, pro and con, among those editors who have been involved in the long-term on any disputed topic. An RfC is one of the first, and lowest-level, ways of approaching that, and as per ] I am less than sure that an additional one could not be considered justified. I propose closing this thread and either allowing the RfC to conclude and, perhaps, at that point, taking the matter further up the dispute resolution process, possibly at DRN or maybe through some other form of mediation. ] (]) 23:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@ ] I filed two RfC’s concerning two articles, the current ANI was not filed by me. I call for an RfC not to forumshop but to get others involved. I am honestly sick of being called names and abusive messages for days. If this all is about “winning” then I am out of the game as stated in the section below. I thought editing in Misplaced Pages is about content. I hardly consult en.wikipedia these days anymore as it just seems anyone is being able to dump their opinion. Discussions can become heated as we all care about the subjects we edit on, but being insulted and threatened with bans is a thing I surely did not come here for. There are articles I would surely like to expand on but here I am dealing with this and my day only has 24h too.--] (]) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::@ ]: As I have stated before, the previous consensus was a whopping 9-1 (including ] who independently tried to revert Catflap earlier) after an RFC that was open for a month and a half. ] of course applies, but unless new evidence is brought to the table, '''the same user''' disruptively opening multiple RFCs despite '''unanimous''' opposition cannot reasonably be seen as anything but disruptive. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}} | |||
| ====Another example of possible forum-shopping==== | |||
| So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include: | |||
| I went away for ten days while there were issues started by Catflap08, and there continue to be Catflap08 issues. Another example that appears to me to be forum-shopping, and appears to show inappropriate selection of forums, involved ]. Catflap08 filed a ] thread, primarily demanding actions not within the scope of DRN, such as no more "threats" and no more "censorship". (Claims of "censorship" may be merely a personal attack in a content dispute, but threats, if they are threats, are a conduct issue.) At the same time, Catflap08 filed a ] thread alleging administrator abuse by ]. The ground rules of DRN say that other dispute resolution mechanisms should not be used at the same time as DRN. Maybe Catflap08 didn't read the ground rules in detail before pursuing both approaches in parallel. I only offer this as a comment to the effect that Catflap08 appears to be a very contentious editor who seems to be willing to use multiple vehicles in parallel. ] (]) 14:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}} | |||
| : It is beginning to look as if Catflap08 should be topic-banned from that article. It's fine to advocate for certain content, b ut when it is continually advocated long after consensus to exclude it is apparent, then it becomes a problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}} | |||
| ::For your information the issue discussed in June was about calling that guy a Nationalist or not – it was decided not to. Why should it lead to a topic ban to mention in the lede to what Buddhist organisation he belonged to though? In one of the talks I then was accused of having had some sort of absurd plan to write the article on Kokuchokai – this is a rather adventurous conspiracy theory. I wrote the article on Kokuchokai as it along with other issues is the very reason why Nichiren Buddhism as whole is regarded by some authors to be nationalist or fascist as whole. As I am quite familiar with the historic development of Nichiren Buddhism I found this article to be missing. I called for an RfC as I saw no ways to reach consensus on the Kokuchokai issue with the editor in question. I can absolutely agree to the fact calling Miaysawa a Nationalist may be a matter of opinion. What I do find irritating that mentioning facts about his life/biography in the lede to be off topic. Secondly a reference to his work which mentions the Kokuchokai involvement was deleted too. I understand that interpreting and making conclusions on facts may be disputable, but if referenced facts are being disputed then we all might as well dump refrences. The audaciousness to the say that I wrote an article to defame that kenji guy is irrational – I refrain from calling it anything else. --] (]) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}} | |||
| :::Robert, Guy, to be fair, it was Hijiri who brought the situation to ANI this time, not Catflap (not that Catflap's hands are entirely clean, however). BTW, Hijiri, full-on admitting that stepping away from the article you are in a content dispute over is "something seem to be willing to do" ]. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 21:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}} | |||
| ::::I'm not in a content dispute. I "won" the content dispute 8 months ago when consensus was clearly established against Catflap's proposed additions. By accusing me of tendentious editing just for not being willing to back down and let Catflap have his way, you are asking me to abandon ]. Catflap is just trolling. I came to ANI to request a block or a topic ban as a result of his disruptive behviour. RFC is not the place to request a block or topic ban. ] (<small>]]</small>) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no intention dragging on about this forever. To be honest I find calling him (Miyazawa) a nationalist and referring to his membership in Kokuchukai to be separate issues – even though related. Having said that I did not insist him being called a nationalist afterwards (June 2014). After me and the editor involved clashed on the Miyazawa issue he quite swiftly questioned the Kokuchukai article, where to my mind I originally summed up what sources have to say. I might be wrong but I have an inkling that at some point the references made to Kokuchukai might leave the article full stop – especially when looking at edits being made just recently to the Miyazawa article. I did post a message to the editor involved on his talk page containing an alternative wording, my feeling what the current wording looks like and the “plan” theory. The editor involved decided to delete it from his talk page – I saved it on mine thereafter. I do work on issues quite on the fringe, debates can become heated. I do at times lose my head especially when I get the feeling that issues are being brushed under the carpet – I admit to that. What bothers me most though is that advocates of issues do get their way quite often. Very rarely do I delete references whether I like them or not, as I trust the reader to make up his/her own mind. I am simply tired of “fighting” for references and links any longer. To my mind the attention of the reader should also be made aware of critical issues as I trust the reader being able to form an opinion. Withholding information is something I find hard to understand. Ban me if you like but I am at any rate not willing to fight windmills either. The work on en.wikipedia has become growingly tedious. If all this is about “winning” then I am out of the game. I just might as well use my time creating a webpage on Nichiren Buddhism. Citing Hijiri88 “RFC is not the place to request a block or topic ban” … Yeap right, RfC it’s the place to get others involved who are objective on the matter - as both of us are seemingly not anymore. So carry on place a halo on the Kenji man you won. --] (]) 00:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At one point I was told that the lede of the article should sum up the article’s content. It might be a good idea to correct guidelines to the effect that the lede’s content should also pass the filter of the one who seems to own the article. Please also note that I just use ONE user name. --] (]) 00:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, the lede should summarize the article contents. Your last attempt to edit the lede made a claim that did not appear anywhere else in the article, and your current proposal would place grossly undue weight on his relationship with an organization with which he was actively associated for maybe a year of his life. You tried to remove all reference to "Buddhism" from the article because of your personal, unsubstantiated belief that Kenji was not associated with any Buddhist temple (why is he buried in one?) and was attracted to the Kokuchukai because of their "dubious nationalist agenda". If BLP applied here you would have been indefinitely blocked months ago for engaging in defamatory OR. Because the subject died in 1933, though, you have had to settle for "losing" in your "]" against me. Please note that I put "won" in quotes above because I don't see this as being about winning and losing; I only referred to it because several users have misread this as an article content dispute, and I wanted to specify that as far as specific article content is concerned that dispute was resolved months ago. If it ''was'' an article content dispute and not an issue of tendentious user conduct, then yes it would not belong on ANI and I would be guilty of forum-shopping, misuse of a noticeboard, and escalation, similar to when you didn't agree with me last June and ] rather than using the article talk page, or the other day when you ] and were told by several other users that "jackass" was a milder epithet than you deserved under the circumstances. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There does seem to me to be a willfully and rather counterproductive, if not even possibly disruptive, attempt to overlook that there is a difference between what was being proposed in the first RfC and what is being proposed in the second RfC. For us Americans, it might, maybe, be like the difference between saying "X is a racist," which is not necessarily good or acceptable here, or "X is a member (of some sort) of the Ku Klux Klan," which is verifiable, more objectively provable or disprovable, and depending on the depth of involvement that individual has in that group, maybe even one of the most prominent things about that individual. Like I said before, in the above section, I think that this issue is probably best closed here and the discussion taken to some other more content related area of the dispute resolution process. ] (]) 00:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@ ]: As far as I am aware, neither myself nor Catflap is an American. I argue based on Japanese sources while Catflap argues based on no sources. All our reliable sources state that he was a devotee of the Lotus Sutra. No sources describe him as a nationalist, and very few even mention the Kokuchukai, with those that do almost universally implying that it was a brief, shallow flirtation. The KKK comparison is flawed, since that organization was all about the racism, whereas the Kokuchukai is mainly known as "that religious group that Miyazawa Kenji was briefly associated with". Catflap has been interpreting all of Kenji's existence in terms of his (brief!) relationship with the Kokuchukai, and has specified on the talk page that he wants readers to click the wikilink and read his poorly-written, poorly-sourced and heavily tilted article on the group, so they can interpret it the same way he does. | |||
| :::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::But none of this is relevant to the issue at hand, which is that Catflap has been refusing to discuss with me on the talk page (seriously, read any of his "responses" to me and try to figure out how they relate to what I said!), misrepresenting sources, abusing the DR process, ignoring consensus, and generally being unpleasant to work with. | |||
| ::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (<small>]]</small>) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also it should be noted that last June (his last edit related to the issue before the current flame-up in December) regarding the then-new consensus: '''Ahh I see now that that guy can not be called nationalistic the nationalistic organization he was a member of is not nationalistic anymore … interesting to say the least that is. That is why references on that organisation are given'''. He then waited six months before coming back and ''immediately'' attempting to justify his current dubious adding of the claim that he was not a "Nichiren Buddhist" but a "member of Kokuchukai" by : '''The term ‘Kokuchūkai’ has an interwiki link. The average reader should be allowed the intelligence to press that link and find out what Kokuchūkai is all about. with a dubious nationalist agenda - why is that a problem to mention?'''. | |||
| *:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does anyone seriously still think this user is not engaged in tendentious, anti-consensus editing? | |||
| ::] (<small>]]</small>) 11:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Propose closing of this thread''' to allow the DRN process, which has been on hold since the 17th since a volunteer handling it had to leave for some reason, to continue as it was intended to. The lack of any attention at DRN has almost certainly exacerbated the emotions of all those involved, and it is not unreasonable to think that may have contributed to this filing. But, with that interrupted process now reopened, I think it makes sense to allow the DRN process to do what it is supposed to. ] (]) 16:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seconded, about closing. Wise words, here and above, by {{U|John Carter}}. Just about the discussion here, {{U|Catflap08}} seems polite and constructive, and I regret he/she is feeling abused and feeling it's possibly he/she may be further abused by an unjustified ban/block. In contrast to pretty shocking verbal abuse here, by {{U|Hijiri88}}, undermining any legitimate point he/she might have. Alternative to closing: some block or ban of Hijiri88. --]]] 23:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's worth noting that John Carter clearly hasn't looked into this case at all, as he is clearly '''getting it mixed up with the unrelated case''' of ] on DRN, which involves Catflap08, but not me, and I was completely unaware of it until ]'s above comment caused me to go to DRN and figure out what on earth he was talking about. This problem has not been brought to DRN because it is not a content dispute. In all of their comments both he and ] have insisted that this is a problem with article content that could be solved by RFC or DRN. Anyone who actually looked at either article talk page would quickly see that the problem is Catflap08 violating consensus and generally being disruptive/unfriendly and forum-shopping, and could not possibly be solved through DRN. The assertion that I came here and reported Catflap08 on ANI because a DRN discussion I had never heard of had become stalled '''laughable'''. '''Please retract all your comments, ], and refrain from commenting on (and particular requesting closes for!) ANI discussions you haven't actually read and haven't the foggiest idea what is going on in. | |||
| ::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per the top of this thread, Doncram clearly not only didn't read the discussion and click the diffs, but is completely ignorant of how ANI works, and should refrain from refactoring others' comments in general and posting on ANI in particular until he/she has a better grasp on how these things work. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::Now where are all the sensible users? | |||
| :::] (<small>]]</small>) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} A few things, {{u|Hijiri88}}: | |||
| # You need to ]. '''Typing things in all bold print doesn't necessarily help to get your point across harder.''' | |||
| # You can't ''make'' anyone retract their comments just because you disagree with them. | |||
| # While I don't recall ever crossing paths with {{u|Doncram}}, s/he has been here for ten years and is an admin hopeful, so I'm pretty sure s/he ''isn't'' "completely ignorant of how ANI works" (btw, enough of ]). | |||
| # Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that this thread should be closed. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 03:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Erpert}}: | |||
| ::#I have been trying to be calm on this subject for nine months in the face of constant IDHT and personal attacks from Catflap. Clearly when users like John Carter read my calm, non-boldface comments they just ignore them, so I tried something new. | |||
| ::#I don't "disagree" with JC's comments; I think they are ridiculous and should not be taken into account in the final result of this thread, based as they are on an apparently flawed assumr that I am an ethnocentric American and that ] and ] are the same person. | |||
| ::#I see that, and I think blatant abuse of guidelines is unbecoming of such an experienced user. | |||
| ::#Could you please comment on the fact that the close proposal from John Carter was based on a misapprehension of the situation (that there was an open DRN discussion of this topic and that this thread was a spinoff of that) before backing up this close request? Because it seems like you didn't actually read my above response before commenting on it... | |||
| ::] (<small>]]</small>) 04:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ===Break for convenience=== | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| Okay, I don't think my strategy up to this point has one me any friends in ], ] and ]. The tone that I have taken has been aggressive and presumptuous, and I apologize. ] tells me that I should assume third-party users don't possess malicious intent even if evidence indicates that they do, and in this case the bulk of evidence actually supports an assumption of good faith. | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{Collapse top|title=Apologies all 'round. Sorry everyone for the aggressive/condescending/jerky tone I have taken in responding to you. This dispute has not brought out the best in me, and I wish to see it finished as soon as possible -- now can we all ] to achieve that goal?}} | |||
| *Erpert came to this dispute as a result of a misplaced 3O request by the other user in the dispute, and was clearly confused on looking at the massive fustercluck on the talk page, assumed there was forum-shopping going on (Erpert was actually ''right'' in this assumption), and so when the issue showed up on ANI Erpert was only right to assume it was just more forum-shopping on what appears on the surface to be a very complicated content dispute, but a content dispute nonetheless. | |||
| :It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *In John Carter's case, my OP comment on ANI apparently wasn't clear enough as to what the substance of the dispute between me and Catlap actually was. I had tried to keep article-content material to a minimum (]), but this obscurity apparently caused John Carter to go through the edit history of the user about whom I was complaining, and, seeing what certainly ''looks like'' the same or at least a related discussion on DRN that had been stalled because of how DRN tends to work (one of the reasons why, back even when this was technically kinda-sorta a content dispute, ). Given this background, assuming I was involved in a DRN discussion with Catflap that had been stalled, got frustrated, and decided to report Catflap on ANI for the same exact content reasons while the DRN discussion was still open. This would of course have been highly disruptive behaviour, and I would probably deserve at least a ], if not a ], if that was actually what had been going on. However, as I hope I have now demonstrated, the DRN discussion John Carter had noticed has absolutely no relation to Miyazawa Kenji and the Kokuchukai (the area in which Catflap and I have our disagreement), and I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the DRN discussion -- which I hadn't even noticed until today. | |||
| ::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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *Doncram apparently misinterpreted ]'s prohibition of "attacks" against other editors to imply that ANI threads complaining about the actions of other editors can't describe those actions as they appear, which is an odd interpretation of that guideline, and is hardly a valid excuse to alter someone else's wording except in extreme cases. It was particularly frustrating for me since I monitor these things by clicking the edit summary links to section heads in my contribution list, and this action essentially broke every one of those links and initially led me to briefly believe the thread had been prematurely archived. But it was, ultimately, an honest mistake, and there is no permanent damage done, so I apologize for my aggressive and somewhat condescending tone in my response above. As for the substance on Doncram's response: by the time Doncram arrived not only the relevant article talk pages that apparently confused Erpert and John Carter, but this ANI thread itself had become a massive fustercluck, so no one can be individually held responsible for misunderstanding the issue, especially when other users had already misunderstood the issue and commented based on that misunderstanding. Good faith mistakes all around -- I not only ] but I can completely sympathize given the circumstances. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| *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) | |||
| Okay, as to the substance, this dispute is basically over whether Kokuchukai (a fringe-y Buddhist group that, at least before 1945, was also nationalistic in its nature and rhetoric) should be mentioned in the lead of the Kenji Miyazawa article. Kenji was apparently an active member of the group during his eight-month stint in Tokyo (he lived the rest of his life in the far north of Japan), and was ''registered'' with the group for somewhat longer than that. The group still claims him as its most famous member. 12 years after effectively ending his activity as part of the group, he died, and was buried in a more mainstream ] temple in his hometown, which has no connection to the Kokuchukai. Most sources discussing him either don't mention the group at all, or brush over it and imply that his relationship was brief. ''Virtually no'' sources imply that he shared the political ideology of the group. | |||
| *: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? – ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes == | |||
| About a year ago, Catflap , not citing any source. A few months later when someone else reverted him, he . Clearly to Catflap "nationalist" and "member of Kokuchūkai" are co-terminous. A few months after that I the word again and simultaneously . I criticized the sources Catflap had cited after first being challenged as actually saying the opposite of what he claimed (one said, essentially, "I think Kenji was a nationalist, but no one else in the academic world agrees with me"). Catflap and . There was an edit war, in which I pointed out that per ] and ] the material had to stay out as the default, and Catflap kept ignoring my talk page comments and reverting me. Catflap's next step was to , where he was (which he not done up to that point at all). He then with an unbalanced OP comment (that misled at least one user into supporting him until, when told the whole story, turned around). Then when , Catflap to the article body and called the edit "minor" even though it was already the subject of a dispute and an open RFC. I ] for this disruptive behaviour, and was told that it wasn't serious enough yet and that as long as consensus was against him he wouldn't be able to re-add the material anyway, even without a TBAN. He . | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Collapse top|title=Summary of recent content dispute that was poorly described in my opening comment. Sorry about that.}} | |||
| This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Six months later, after the RFC had been as an 8-1 consensus against calling Kenji a nationalist, Catflap came back and . He was in this by ]. A took place on the talk page in which Dekimasu cited numerous reliable sources that refer to him as a "devout Buddhist" (all of which either don't mention Kokuchukai at all, or don't mention it prominently), and Catflap ignored them completely, reiterating his personal opinion that Kenji wasn't a "Buddhist" but a member of "a lay organisation, not affiliated to any Buddhist school and with a dubious nationalist agenda". | |||
| :Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Promotional content about Elvenking (band) == | |||
| Since then (and I posted the diffs in my OP comment) I reverted, Catflap posted irrelevant comments on the talk page about how this source or that source mention briefly that he was a member of the Kokuchukai. None of those sources describe either him or the Kokuchukai as nationalist, but ] makes this claim, and and read all about how cherry-picked sources discussing pre-1945 nationalism only talk about the Kokuchukai as a nationalist organization rather than as a religious group. Maybe they were mostly political, but all our sources suggest that even if they were Kenji wasn't aware of that, so putting emphasis on the group in the Kenji article, when his relationship with them was peripheral at best, is problematic. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| | result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The above was mostly a content dispute, but then Catflap08 repeated the same behaviour I had complained about in the past (refusing to discuss with me on the talk page and immediately turning to 3O and RFC, posting biased RFC openers that were guaranteed to unbalance the discussion). And worst of all it is very obviously an attempt by him to ''again'' get around the consensus on calling him a nationalist -- first he was told that the noun "nationalist" was bad, so he moved to "nationalistic", and then when ] told him that too was out, he waited a little while and switched euphemisms again to "member of Kokuchukai", removing reference to the subject's Buddhist beliefs so that the reader would be forced to conclude that he shared the political beliefs of the group and religion was peripheral, rather than the other way around, which is what all the sources say. | |||
| }} | |||
| Most recently, I and explained that the RFCs would both fail if we didn't work together to craft a comprehensive, easy to understand and neutral summary, because no one would respond. He on this offer to cooperate. He also reiterated that he wanted "neutral" third parties to comment, even though on reading even good-faith users couldn't help but be inadvertently biased (like ] in the previous RFC). | |||
| I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. | |||
| I'm not here because of the content dispute. I'm here because this user has repeated the same pattern of problematic behaviour over and over again, and if he isn't TBANned or blocked, it's going to happen again even after the dust settles on the two RFCs. He might also be engaging in similar behaviour elsewhere, but at the moment that doesn't concern me: what concerns me is the flagrant disregard for constructive discussion and user consensus on this one article where he has tried to get around consensus three times already and has faced unanimous opposition. Hence the renewed request for a TBAN. | |||
| ] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry again for a very long post, but I hope that clears up all the previous misunderstandings. | |||
| :*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| ] (<small>]]</small>) 14:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please ]. This seeming ''refusal'' on your part to continue to belabor your reservations about the conduct of others, while at the same time seeming to ignore or attempt to justify your own frankly inexcusable incivility in all likelihood makes the possibility of you personally being sanctioned for misconduct much more likely, and, if anything, may reduce the possibility of sanctions against others, based on this tendentious misconduct. There is now, as has been said before, an apparently open DRN didscussion regarding this topic. I think you would be very well advised to spend your energy in a more productive way there than by tendentious possible harassment here. ] (]) 19:40, 3 March 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) | |||
| ::@]: What dead horse? You keep saying the ]-] issue is under discussion on DRN, and I keep telling you it isn't. I already apologized to you for my aggressive tone, but you clearly ignored this apology, as you have ignored every other post where I specified that the topic on DRN is completely unrelated and has nothing to do with me, and is (at best) further evidence that Catflap is a confrontational user who is at any given time engaged in three or four different disputes that to outsiders can look like the same issue. I have never edited the ] article and have absolutely no idea what that dispute is about. AGF can take me only so far, and being ''repeatedly'' accused of being involved in a dispute I have connection to even after I have given an angry, aggressive, but clear explanation, apologized for my aggressive tone, given a calm and clear explanation, and then reiterated myself is taking it a bit far. I don't why you are choosing to ignore everything I say to you. Have you and I conflicted in the past? If I have offended you at some point you have my sincerest apology. But you need to stop telling yourself and others that the dispute Catflap is involved in with ], ], ] and ] on the Daisaku Ikeda article has any connection whatsoever to the present problem. It was clearly a good faith mistake at first but now is beginning to become seriously disruptive. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hijiri, are you seriously ]? This nonsense needs to stop ''now''. (SN: Catflap hasn't edited .) '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 09:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate. | |||
| '''Move to close''' Catflap is guilty of gross abuse of the dispute resolution process, and is very obviously violating consensus on the Kenji Miyazawa article, but this thread has become such a fustercluck that the chances of anything good coming out of it are slim. Given that Catflap's current proposals have ''no'' chance of staying in the article, it's not a problem in the short run. I'll wait until the ''next'' time he tries to violate the consensus to ask for sanctions again, I guess. It's worth noting that I assumed good faith the whole way through, and even apologized for taking a somewhat gruff tone with some uninvolved but clearly uninformed third parties. Doncrum graciously accepted my apology, but Erpert and John Carter responded by continuing to post personal attacks against me. I want John Carter's repeated accusations of ... I don't know ... sockpuppetry? Which other account does he think I operated that is involved in the Daisaku Ikeda dispute? Why did he think this? Erpert is wrong, but I wasn't offended by his wrongness; John Carter owes me an apology. Close this thread now so good faith editors can tell Catflap that his article edits are crap and need to be reverted. If he keeps up his current behaviour after being told this for the third time, I will ask for a TBAN again, but until then farewell ANI. (Unless of course JC doesn't give me that apology. False accusations of sockpuppetry and/or forum-shopping can't be allowed to stand.) ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:20, 4 March 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) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. | |||
| ::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.'' | |||
| ::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. | |||
| ::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.'' | |||
| ::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. | |||
| ::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album | |||
| :::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ | |||
| :::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ] ] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} === | |||
| == Proposal for topic ban of AliAkar on Jews and Judaism == | |||
| {{archivetop|NAC: Indefinitely blocked by ]. ] (]) 21:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::''(Retitled from non-neutral "Really need to topic ban AliAkar from Jews and Judaism" per ]. --]]] 04:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC))'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|AliAkar}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| 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. | |||
| User:AliAkar has recreated (for at least the third time) an article draft for a 368 page ] by white supremacist ], which takes Duke's asinine claims at face value. It includes lines like "...the authenticity of the book cannot be doubted. This exceptional style of writing gives the book edge over any other books with different style of writing." Its citations are either promotional sources (such as David Duke's website), or do not mention the book at all, the exceptions being a single , and a ] Goodreads.com page. | |||
| 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 | |||
| We need to topic ban AliAkar from Jews and Judaism. Either he is intent on ] or else he has ] issues with NPOV. Multiple users have explained that Misplaced Pages is not the place to push antisemitic conspiracy theory bollocks, and he has not paid any attention. The previous thread was given a non-admin closure, stating that the suggestion of a topic ban would be worth suggesting again if the behavior continues. It has continued. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| TL;DR: AliAkar keeps trying to recreate an article that promotes an Antisemitic canard by ], has been told to stop, and needs to be topic banned from all pages relating to at least Judaism. ] (]) 19:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
| :::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bunch of racist IPs/account == | |||
| *'''Non-admin support''' as per ]. Obvious case, really. The user has been warned several times, the previous ANI said a ban could be put in place if this was repeated, and it obviously is repeated.] (]) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| * {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}} | |||
| * {{ip|112.202.57.150}} | |||
| * {{ip|186.154.62.233}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Ditto''' the above. ] | <sup>]</sup> 10 Adar 5775 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Urgent need for page protection on BLP == | |||
| *So why isn't he blocked yet? Looks like he's abusing Misplaced Pages. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::If he was an ], I'd be asking for a block instead of a topic ban. I haven't digged too deeply into his other edits, but he seems to do other stuff like , , and . I'm totally fine with an Iran-article ], and don't even care if an editor is an ] (we all have our own POVs), but pushing any POV (especially one that is both hateful and completely out of touch with reality) is something I can't support. ] (]) 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::He is one of a couple of editors with a particular ] who persistently makes articles and edits in this specific "revolutionary" spirit. I agree all must have their POVs, but he does not seem like a user who is going to adjust or is in any way interested in making an encyclopedia. (My main run-in with him was here: .)--] (]) 20:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::::Very well then, if others want to present a case for a block, I'm not opposed. I've only gathered evidence for this, however, and those articles are areas where I wouldn't know where to look or what to look for (so someone else would have to provide the evidence and draft the proposal). ] (]) 20:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I have already warned the user that the article wasn't acceptable in this form, as it constituted promotion of the book and its ideas. (His edits to the article ] were also problematic.) <b>Support topic ban</b>. - ] (]) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** See below for further development. - ] (]) 10:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Is this about his multiple attempt to have a page on this David Duke book, or his editing the article to be so extremely promotional? Thank you. ] (]) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** The article about the book doesn't currently exist; the title redirects to ]. Rather, the problem is his repeated attempts to create an article promoting the (anti-Semitic) book and ideas therein, initially in article space, later as a user draft. See ]. - ] (]) 20:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}It's not either/or in my mind. He didn't just edit an existing (and salvageable) article to promote the book, and we have (non-promotional) articles on ], ], and ]. AliAkar has repeatedly created the article to promote the book. I would not be opposed to an article on the book, if it meets ] and ]. However, AliAkar has demonstrated either unwillingness or inability to write such an article that does not violate ] by promoting antisemitism. ] (]) 20:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support topic ban'''. If not a ban, period. Not a difficult determination, based on the evidence.</s> Based on previous ANI discussion, support '''ban'''. Topic ban insufficient. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've looked through another article created by the user ], and it looks to be propaganda. I checked a source that is used repeatedly in the article, the book "Hezbollah: A History of the Party of God", and it tells a very different story than the Misplaced Pages article | |||
| **From the Misplaced Pages article: "he went to Syria to help the Lebanese people". The cited source says that he headed an Iranian commando unit. | |||
| **"They disappeared in Lebanon during civil war and were delivered to the Israel military after interrogation." The cited source says "Since then, directly or through the voice of the Hezbollah, the Tehran authorities have proclaimed that its nationals are being held prisoner in Israel. But, according to an Israeli report, these men were killed by the Lebanese Forces. That was confirmed by Robert Hatem, known as “Cobra,” for- mer bodyguard to Hobeika, who added that three hundred Lebanese Shiites met the same fate in the headquarters in La Quarantaine." | |||
| :I would recommend checking this user's contributions carefully.] (]) 21:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Also, lots of copying of sentences and phrases from sources and close paraphrasing. ] (]) 21:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Non admin support''' of topic ban. I've worked on articles created by this editor, he has clear POV problems. I would hope, in short time, that he learns more about neutral point of view. He has been somewhat constructive in editing and creating articles related to the Shia religion, and Iranian soldiers from the Iran-Iraq War, but at times shows he very clearly doesn't understand NPOV. A topic ban would allow him to continue to contribute in these areas, and hopefully learn more about ]. Thanks. ] (]) 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - as Ian has articulated above, the account is not an SPA. Perhaps he just can't handle editing in this area. If so, let's solve that problem. If the problematic editing transfers to other areas then a broader block/ban might be in order. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' site ban as preferred action, topic ban as second option. This editor is clearly here to push a certain point of view, not to build neutral articles. Editors such as this have the potential to seriously damage Misplaced Pages's reputation. ] (]) 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' as proposed by Ian.thomson. The user is not a SPA and may be able to contribute constructively in other topic areas.- ]] 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| * Please think about your comment in above. You know that the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that several people can contribute for improvement of it. I write a article about a book in my userspace draft page but they show hypersensitive behavior. I think there is a personal problem with this topic and if any user write about the topic you create this debate.] (]) 07:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I published the article in mane space and you can contribute for improving it according to wiki rules. If delete, you show that you have problem with topic, the book, and writer.] (]) 07:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You presented David Duke's hateful and insane lies as truth, and you're putting it into mainspace. Notice that most people here supported banning you from editing articles relating to Judaism, and that no one has defended your draft. ] (]) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Have to say, supported a topic ban but comments like that suggest a site ban might be in order. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 08:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support site ban'''</s> - Moving the draft to mainspace after seeing this thread demonstrates either ] or ] on AliAkar's part. ] (]) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since he has deleted the userspace draft, I'm withdrawing support for the site ban, but not the topic ban. ] (]) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support site ban.''' Nothing else to add here really, but is another example of his/her POV-pushing agenda. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I want create a page for introduce the book and this book is about Anti-Zionist idea. We must introduce all idea in Misplaced Pages and censoring idea is wrong. If an editor is an Anti-Zionist can contribute on and contribution for improvement of the book according to Wiki rules is better than topic ban or speed deletion. Also the book translated on 7 languages and published and sold in several countries and needless my promotion. Please say the article mistakes and help to solve them. We all have our own POVs but we must help each other.] (]) 08:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The idea of creating an article is not bad by itself. You are just doing it wrong. Read everyone's comments. Those people are not the problem. Your bias is the problem. Everyone has a POV, but they are supposed to hold them back when editing articles. ] (]) 09:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last ] report. Yes, the article has a POV, but that in and of itself does not merit a ban. Let him finish the draft and move it to article space. The POV will get mercilessly stripped, and the article might even get deleted if the subject isn't notable enough. The usual process of creating and editing articles will therefore have succeeded. If AliAkar engages in edit warring or other disruptive behaviour to preserve the POV, ''then'' we can consider blocking or banning him. (If he has no intention of moving the draft to article space, though, the page should be deleted as ], particularly for stuff like this.) —] (]) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::He did move the article to mainspace, and about the only thing that would remain if the article was rewritten to meet ] would be "Jewish Supremacism (2003; ISBN 1-892796-00-8) is a book by David Duke." ] (]) 09:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Only the laziest of rewrites would result in cutting it down that much. Much of the existing material on the book's structure and content is fine, except that it's written in a sort of "]" style. To fix this all that's required is to couch the existing claims in language which makes it clear that they are reporting Duke's worldview rather than commonly accepted facts and opinions. Likewise there's much to salvage in the section on the publication of the book. The claims about the translations are primary-sourced but easily verifiable and not unduly self-serving, so permissible under ]. Regarding the text about the Russian reception, he seems to have misinterpreted the Anti-Defamation League article he cites (or possibly he's relying on a further uncited source), though the crux of the matter—certain Russian legislators' attempts to have the book banned—is essentially correct. —] (]) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The gist of what you're saying seems to be: "POV-editors, rejoice! Have fun filling Misplaced Pages with as much POV as you can. If anyone has a problem, the burden is on them to clean up after you." That is just a really damaging attitude, and at odds with ].--] (]) 11:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I am saying that we don't generally block or ban users for creating a single, salvageable POV article, particularly when they have a history of constructive editing. Instead, we point out and correct the problems and hope they learn from their mistakes. Blocking and banning are for editors whose larger pattern of problematic editing demonstrates them to be incorrigible. —] (]) 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've just uncovered and fixed three instances of apparent copyright violations by AliAkar. I see he's been warned for copyright problems before, but I haven't had time to check whether the ones I just found post-date these warnings. If they do, then I'd have no objection to him being blocked until such time as he demonstrates an understanding of copyright and an intention not to violate it in the future. —] (]) 11:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Everyone claims that these are false, Please help improve the article and add another idea.'''] (]) 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** You should have known by now that the article wasn't anywhere near acceptable; still, you moved it to article space. I now <b>support</b> a lengthy block, and a ban on making any edits whatsoever related to Israel, Jews, Judaism, anti-Semitism, or the like. - ] (]) 10:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know about the rule that you say. You read my article in my user space draft and said your idea about it and you want ban me for this article in user space draft. So I moved it to main space. If you think the article have problem you can contribute for solving the problems.] (]) 10:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: '''Oppose'''If his writing is biased, he should not be banned, but you can help to balance his article per ]. Do you think that the writers of all biased material should be banned? But Misplaced Pages has rule for biased articles as ]... it means that the writers would not be banned. ] (]) 12:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think he might be unaware of Misplaced Pages rules and policy. If he will delete the page, for now, and learn a little more about these rules and policies, that would really help this situation. I would be glad to help him learn more. He has made some good contributions to Misplaced Pages, particularly related to the Iran-Iraq War. Taking a bit of time to learn more about Misplaced Pages policy would really help him, and he could make an even better contribution in the articles he creates. Thanks. ] (]) 12:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Another update: Removing the article and the article draft is a step in the right direction; the nonsensical message on my talk page accusing me of bias is not. And no, I don't think you can claim ignorance. At least three users (including me) have warned you on your talk page that the article was unacceptable in this form. When you re-created the draft, you have been warned that a discussion has been started seeking you banned from writing on this topic. What did you do? Moved the draft into article space. - ] (]) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: With regards to the user's message on my talk page, it appears that he has confused me for ]. That said, I don't support an indefinite block, but still believe that a topic ban is in order. - ] (]) 19:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinite block''' Give anti-semitism the red card. I'm arguing for an indef rather than a ban because I think a TBAN isn't far-reaching enough given what happened here, and I'm of the school that SBANs are for people who engage in sockpuppetry after being indefinitely blocked. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Update''' I explained to the editor that he needs to learn more about Misplaced Pages rules and policy. I asked him to delete the page - and he has deleted it. I will work with this editor so that he understand these rules and work with him on his contributions (Iran-Iraq War articles). I think we need to be a little merciful concerning a complete ban here. A topic ban would allow him to contribute towards better Iran-Iraq War articles. Thank you for considering this. ] (]) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **''He'' deleted the page? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 12:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***He deleted what he could and asked how to delete the userspace. I sent just sent him the tag to use. Thanks. ] (]) 13:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The editor has placed a userpage speedy delete tag on the page. See ]. This demonstrates a good faith effort on the part of this editor. Thanks. ] (]) 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *You deleted the main page and I deleted my userspace draft page. But I think nobody write about this book. If anybody write about the book, I check the POV of article.] (]) 13:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The best thing to do is to take a break from this subject for a while. You have made good contributions in your articles on the Iraq-Iran War. Put your energy into those articles until you have a better understanding for rules, policy and such. This will work to benefit everybody. Thank you for showing your desire to work with other editors. ] (]) 13:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I have started a ] that cites sources from the ], ], ], ], and the ]. Now no one can make the claim that it is the topic that's the problem. ] (]) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I read your page and become sure that you have POV problem more than me. You write "Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question is a 2003 book by former Klansman and white supremacist David Duke" in the first sentence of article while you introduce him as a racialist. I am sure that you have POV and write the text with your idea.] (]) 07:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I started with that because that is ]. ] to make racialists look better. | |||
| :::Ladies and gentlemen, this is why AliAkar still needs to be topic-banned from Jews and Judaism: he doesn't get that ] is a racialist. ] (]) 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *My arguements against a site ban - Today, I started a dialogue with this editor on his talk page. After explaining a bit of Misplaced Pages guidelines to him, he put a deletion tag on his userspace, had it deleted, and agreed to only work on Iranian military biographies. Assuming good faith - it is possible that a missed opportunity occurred where nobody reached out to him before to try to actually work with him. He has made contributions to articles related to the Iran-Iraq War, after learning about our guidelines, he could continue to make a constructive contribution there. I hope other editors will drop their request for a site ban, a topic ban is understandable, but a site ban seems rather extreme to me. I would be for a site ban if he were to continue such efforts, against guidelines, in the future, but as it stands today, this seems rather extreme. Thanks. ] (]) 22:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{A note}} On fawiki (Persian Misplaced Pages), ] was recently blocked for sockpuppeting per . Can that user be assumed to be identical with the AliAkar here?--] (]) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * confirms that it's indeed the same account. - ] (]) 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **If those CheckUser results are correct, then he's socking on English Misplaced Pages as well with the accounts ], ], and ]. I suspect there are further accounts and have just opened ]. —] (]) 11:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Indefinitely blocked''' per all above, especially ]. Racism gets a red card, and posts like and are enough for me. Then of course there's the multiple accounts. I'll block the known socks ], ] (currently the oldest of the known accounts), and ]. Thank you, ], ] and ] for figuring them out. ] | ] 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| *Given the above, no reason to assume good faith anymore. A block is appropriate. Thanks. ] (]) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks guys for discovering and dealing with the sockpuppetry. I thought I'd go on ahead and move ] out to article space, just to help wrap up one more loose end (even if a small and disgusting one). However, when I tried to create ], it told me to log in to create the article ("... I ''am''"). Since I was logged in, I tried to create it at ], and move it to ], but ''then'' it finally said I don't have permission to create that article. | |||
| :I wouldn't mind leaving it at the shorter title, but I'm guessing it goes against the manual of style. Could someone move it over to the longer title? I only bring this up just to try and resolve any loose ends left from this fiasco. ] (]) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done. I don't understand what caused the problem, as the title of AliAkar's deleted ] had different (and incorrect) punctuation. Perhaps the similarity spooked your move all the same. ] | ] 20:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::However... AliAkar had the right words. I checked on Amazon: it's "My Awakening '''to''' the Jewish Question". I've moved the article again. ] | ] 20:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| There seem to be a lot of copyright violations from AliAkar and his sockpuppets. If anyone is interested in helping identify and remove them, please visit the case page at ]. —] (]) 09:34, 6 March 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 | |||
| == Ownership and personal attack issues with editors== | |||
| , , . | |||
| 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. | |||
| Ever since creating this account last year, I have often faced deep hostility from Bangladeshi Wikipedians, especially ], who is blindly against me. I am not a nationalist and I always back up my edits with reliable sources. I have been singled out for aggressiveness, false charges of edit warring and often harangued for days in talk pages- ], ], ] and ]. I was personally attacked on several occasions. For simply suggesting Bangladesh's divisional administrative centers be also termed as divisional capitals instead of the usual ''headquarters'', I was dubbed "ridiculous". For adding images to an article, I was told I can't go "a far way". | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| My background and exposure allows me to contribute significantly in certain areas, especially politics, history and foreign affairs. But my fortunes have taken a turn for the worst in the last two years, so much so that I am not being able to pursue my university degree. I am stuck at home in Dhaka and Misplaced Pages offers an opportunity to utilize my time and improve B'desh related issues. On three/four occasions, I did lose my temper and made personal attacks. My response came only to their hostility. However I apologized or removed those attacks every time. | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again == | |||
| The blind hostility I face is simply overwhelming and extremely stressful. What ever happened to ]? How can anyone engage when they're faced with so much blind aggressiveness. It seems several Bangladeshi editors have ganged up against me and they have a habit of making sweeping remarks without any basis, with a deeply hostile personal undertone.--] (]) 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I fail to see how this has anything to do with the nationality of Nafsadh. We can't forget ]. I don't think there is some bias against you, just a conflict. These happen all the time on the wiki. This can be solved with civil discussion. ] (]) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course it has nothing to with nationality. But if Nafsadh has made up his mind against me it becomes really hard to bring major improvements. If he is going attack me for the most simple reasonable accurate edits, that's just a waste of time. If he wants to genuinely engage, he's welcome to question me politely. Why does he have to bring edit warring charges every time? What's the point of them? They haven't produced any different results. My edits don't merit these aggressive accusations. Instead so many times some editors make sweeping personal remarks.--] (]) 21:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fine, but they don't assume good faith. It's they who begin edit warring over minor details. You can look at these pages ], ], ] and ].--] (]) 23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ] keeps making personal attacks on several Bangladesh related talk pages. | |||
| Let's focus on what's actually material. I would like to cite his "record" to show a lack of a pattern of good behavior: | |||
| * to ] | |||
| ..... | |||
| ..... | |||
| *to ] | |||
| ...... | |||
| * to ] | |||
| ........ | |||
| ........ | |||
| == User:NoahBWill2002 == | |||
| {{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ........ | |||
| *{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}} | |||
| It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br> | |||
| (As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br> | |||
| I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Vandal encounter == | |||
| He has been recently for attacking a specific ] but unfortunately the editor leave Misplaced Pages! His verbal aggression and non cooperative attitude on Talk pages often disturb other editors. It is an appeal to administrator, please calm him down before wikipedia lost another editor—] (]) 22:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I should have reported ] first. He has a habit of pure chauvinism. He began an unnecessary over images in Bangladesh, attacking me that I won't "go a far way". In ], he is chauvinistically pushing arguments which fall on their face. The problem with most of these editors is that they have utterly partisan views. They do not contribute significant content to the articles I edit. But they will make a fuss over pictures and minor issues. They will begin an edit war, instead of amicably raising any issues they have on the talk page. I still think it was unjustified for Noq, Nafsadh and Kmzayeem to harangue me out of the blue for expanding the History section in Dhaka. | |||
| ] 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. | |||
| :Another example of Samudrakula's chauvinism- ] did not leave because of me. He even thanked me for an edit of mine 3 days ago. He's a very sophisticated editor, although we have our differences.--] (]) 23:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: It seems to me ]! You have already confirmed that you made personal attacks! and Doing it again and again. ″Apologized or removed those attacks every time″—— Then what about ]. You are trying to move an Article about ] against Citing sources like ] n ] website and ]. I am requesting the administrator to read the talk page discussions- if anyone find anything like so called ″chauvinism″ then i will quit wikipedia forever. My question is, how long and how many editors should tolerate such kind of comments and insults? I have no enough time to write a huge paragraph due to my studies it doesn't mean i have no right to correct a mistake. | |||
| ″] Note: I hate receiving personal attacks from users who contributed nothing when I wrote almost entirely of an article. I won't spend more time on endless Wiki disputes. I am leaving Misplaced Pages for some time″—] (]) 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| ::Sometimes Rainmaker23 becomes highly bewildered about how to ]. Lets have a look at three different version of his last response: , , and . He . This is just another instance of his Talk page behavior. He is prone to removing comments of other users from article talk pages and blanking whole discussion: , , , ; partial changes of own remark here and there , , , -- often minor, but sometimes really confusing. | |||
| ::Rainmaker23 makes remarks that are not always polite -- towards a single editor or in general (all other editors): , , , , , , and looks down upon other editors: , . | |||
| ::Rainmaker23 is , , but . | |||
| ::Rainmaker23 removes discussion from other users' talk and makes indecent remark (on talk and edit comment): , , , | |||
| ::Sometimes Rainmaker23 . There are many more incidents. | |||
| ::Just while I was compiling this comment with some of his activities, I was wondering, does Rainmaker23 do more harm than he does good? – ''] ] ]'' 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interestingly, Rainmaker23 and , yet (). – ''] ] ]'' 01:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another thing I think I should note: Rainmaker23 posted this ANI right after . – ''] ] ]'' 01:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can see that Rainmaker has complains. But, it is impossible to judge his complaints, because he has furnished no proof, no evidence, nothing. Rainmaker, can you post some evidences that support your complaints? Otherwise this discussion is quite useless. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 03:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No Aditya, the discussion has use. Plaintiffs undergo investigation too. – ''] ] ]'' 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Aditya don't try to hijack everything. This was a you made last year. I noted this in my first para. All the talk pages I've listed have the evidence.--] (]) 03:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Nafsadh I would have brought you to ANI much earlier. I don't condone my talk page behavior. But my edits are not controversial.--] (]) 03:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I was looking into the histories of several Bangladesh related articles and I found a stunning similarity between behavior of {{U|Uck22}} (sock of {{U|Bazaan}}) and interestingly, Rainmaker23 emerged soon after Uck22 & Co. got blocked for sock-puppetry in June 2014. – ''] ] ]'' 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: and you say you're not personal? I'm not engaged in sock puppetry.--] (]) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You said it! | |||
| :::So, you are saying is indeed ? – ''] ] ]'' 05:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course that's the IP I get from my internet company.--] (]) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Considering my own experience with Rainmaker23, I think he is allergic to any sort of criticism of his edits or difference of opinions. On 17 February, I made somewhat criticizing his changes in ] which resulted in all those outrages against me, as shown in the diffs given by Nafsadh and Samudrakula. I'm quite surprised to see that he started this ANI against Nafsadh who has remained perhaps the calmest and the most benign editor to him despite all those personal attacks. Also, I would like to know what made {{u|Rainmaker23}} think that I am personally or professionally connected to the subject of ] that he . He didn't raise a single concern about any POV or promotional content in the article. --''''']''''' <sup> ]</sup> 11:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not allergic to criticism. You're probably allergic to anyone and anything against the ]. As I said I should have brought Nafsadh to ANI much earlier. He has attacked me over the most minute details through edit wars and false accusations, which could have been easily resolved through a proper discussion. When after more than six months, I see the main WP Bangladesh editors are personally against me, and will obstruct me in the most reasonable and simple changes, I obviously had enough.--] (]) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I was asked to look at this discussion because I sometimes try to improve Bangladesh articles. It is a distressing situation, but unfortunately a common one in articles related to Bangladesh (and the reason that I do less work there than I would like to). The allegations of "personal attacks" are a mixed group of really personal insults and other material that has been mislabelled. To say "ridiculous edit" is not the same as saying "ridiculous person"; only the latter is a "personal attack". We all make mistakes; any of us can made a ridiculous edit. I suggest that it is time to close this ANI, and for participants to take a break until they are ready to come back to divide each contentious issue into the smallest possible components so that potential small changes to articles can be discussed individually. If there were a way to set up all ] pages so that only small edits can be made, and no more than a few per editor per day, that could be very helpful (but I doubt that such a mechanism exists in wikipedia). ] (]) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Small edits -- is a good idea but limiting numbers is not. Generally, well experienced editors engage in discussion before making massive changes in high-traffic articles. You were notified because, a diff presented here was from your talk page. – ''] ] ]'' 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| One last point for ]. If you thought the version I placed in Dhaka gave undue weight to a particular time period, you could be more specific on what changes you wanted to see. Or better you could have easily deducted my content or made changes yourself. You're very much capable of doing that. Instead you love to throw your opinions around without any constructive suggestions as if you're in parliament.--] (]) 06:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Rainmaker23}}, look, I'm not a supporter of BNP or any other political parties in Bangladesh. I don't know if any of my edits have hurt your political or ideological orientation, if it really did, then I'm sorry but I'm just doing my bit as an editor in Misplaced Pages. If you really spotted any POV edits by me then you should have raised your concerns in the respective talk pages before throwing such illogical remarks. If there's undue weight in any article, the only changes to fix this up are trimming the texts or increasing the coverage of other parts, that's simple commonsense. I thought you have good knowledge about the history of Bangladesh and you would increase the coverage of the earlier periods in the history section of ] to fix the undue weight, however, I left that to you to fix in whatever way you like. Yeah, I could have made some changes myself but then the way you were practicing your ownership and edit warring in the article, it would discourage any editor to make an edit there. And lastly, stop living in a paranoia that everybody here is conspiring against you, all of us have far more important things to do. --''''']''''' <sup> ]</sup> 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, exactly that is common sense. Instead of hostile commentary it would be better if you can just get to the point. You're in paranoia, to think I own articles or pursue edit wars. The evidence is clearly there to show who's responsible for that. Finally, I never said anything about a conspiracy. Your lot is just too stubborn that's all.--] (]) 12:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can someone please close this ANI? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places == | |||
| Having read through this a couple times, I'd like to ask: What exactly is being requested of admins here? ] (]) 03:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :Nothing. Please close this ANI. <small>{{U|Rainmaker23}} complained that ''"I ({{U|Nafsadh}}) and other "main(!)" WikiProject:Bangladesh editors are hostile towards him"''. </small> – ''] ] ]'' 15:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ], Aditya Kabir dismissed an entire discussion, not an edit, as "ridiculous" simply because it went against the line of the Government of Bangladesh. Last time I checked, the term ''headquarters'' refers to an office building, not an entire city. Plenty of sources use the term regional capital to refer to the administrative centers of Bangladesh. I was not against the use of the term headquarters, I simply wanted to use the term ''capital'' interchangeably, since Nafsadh put a complete ban on the term. How does it sound if someone said Edinburugh is the headquarters of Scotland, Okinawa is the headquarters of Okinawa Prefecture or Marseille is the headquarters of Côte d'Azur? Misplaced Pages calls them regional capitals. It certainly helps people understand the position of these cities better. My rationale and proposition was not ridiculous.--] (]) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s. | |||
| @] and @], I had hoped for some arbitration in Bangladesh disputes since three particular editors seem to be blind to the need for major improvements. One of them thinks a copy edit can resolve it all. Yet until recently, the Bangladesh page itself made hardly any mention of the country's indigenous tribes, who make up a small but significant 2% of the population.--] (]) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, this is a content dispute which admins will not action on. If you haven't already done so, the ] is the best place for this. If that fails and you think it is sufficiently serious, you can submit a case to the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting a block of a user == | |||
| :I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. I am requesting a permanent block of {{userlinks|Zzaxx1}}. This user has consistently gone against consensus on ] related articles in adding information regarding the upcoming 2017 ''Spider-Man'' film. This user has been warned by many (see most recent diff from their talk) and has completely failed to positively contribute to any discussion on this matter. Many users have approached them to contribute to discussions regarding this content (after a consensus against their view was formed), but that was just met with uncivilty (ie and ) or blanking talk page content because the consensus does not suit their personal opinion (ie and ). I'm not going to provide specific diffs regarding the actions of this user, because their can speak for itself. But if anyone would really like them, I'll gather some up. Thanks. - ] (]) 05:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Zzaxx1 only has one current time edit displayed at ] and a few edits that were wiped in her/his blanking of content. Major issues here are the disregard to other editors in regard to this blanking of content and the obnoxious responses to apparently well intentioned edits. | |||
| ::I '''support''' the block request. ]] 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: He isn't a bad editor, he just refuses to go by consensus so maybe just a topic ban until the issue is resolved.--] (]) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I would support a topic ban as well. Which I suspect for this user would effectively be a block, since it appears to be their primary topic of interest. --<font color="#111111">‖ ] <sup>]</sup> - <small>]</font> ‖ 14:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would support the topic ban, but as Ebyabe pointed out, it is effectively a full block on them, as their primary editing topic is Marvel Comics and its related articles. - ] (]) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'''Weak support''' as I was in the discussion and they don't seem contempt with much conversation on the talk page. ] (]) 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Weegeerunner}} not quite sure what you mean there. Either way he was directed to the talk page and has also tried to blank the talk pages of the various articles involved of all topics that discussed the topic and linked back to the main discussion. Can you actually block someone from editting ceartain pages or is it a trust thing? If it is a trust thing then a full ban may be better suited.--19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::To whoever commented above, yes, users can be topic banned so they do not have the ability to edit those pages in that topic. - ] (]) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As a technical point, no. Users can be topic-banned. That does not mean that they do not have the ability to edit those pages. It means that they do not have the right to edit those pages. At the same time, it isn't only "a trust thing", because editors who violate a topic-ban will be blocked, and subsequent violations (after coming off block) will lead to longer blocks. So a block isn't the only way to deal with tendentious or disruptive editing; a topic-ban is the usual sanction for disruptive editing in a particular topic. ] (]) 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} Would you mind examining this situation and providing an opinion and/or action against the user if you deem it necessary? - ] (]) 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Not sure about blocking, but '''support''' topic ban ] (] / ])</b> 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == conflict of interet and fraudulant editing == | |||
| {{archivetop|As noted in the last comment, this discussion appears to have run its course. There is no consensus for the need for any action by an administrator. For ongoing disputes related to specific article content, please consider ]. -- ] (]) 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| I ask the panel here to take administrative action against editor ] . | |||
| I first encountered him in the article ] (Head of FDA 1969) he removed very biting criticism againts big pharma, on the reason of copy editing.ok. so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later. But he also inserted a bogus sentence not in a citation in order to white wash criticism: "Dr. Ley stated that companies had not pressured him regarding decisions about specific products during his tenure". It is just the opposite of Leys position. | |||
| He deleted another post about Ley in ], this time with a bogus reason of not being relevent anymore. A clear criticism from a previous head of the fda not relevent! Lol. | |||
| I have looked at the editor's contributions; he is clearly on a crusade to delete criticism of big pharma all over wikipedia. | |||
| This is when i decided to open this ANI. I think it is very evident, his motivations and actions on wikipedia.] (]) 06:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry and all that entails. There is little you can do about it on this noticeboard. The best thing you can do is do the research on Misplaced Pages's bias and have your findings published in the media. Don't bother with a medical journal because they are in bed with big pharma as well. Because this is the accepted "house bias", it is seen as acceptable. Therefore, I move to close this thread. ] (]) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If biased POV can be established then I would support a topic ban on chemistry related topics on ]. This may present a loss for Misplaced Pages in some ways as this editor presents himself as a scientist. More specifically he says, "This user is a chemist. He gets cranky sometimes. If this happens, please try to ignore his bad behavior until he recovers his senses". As simple response to that, no! Please address your behaviour and, if you think that you may be in a cranky mood, don't edit. Stay away. Misplaced Pages is here to present non-biased content according to the standards presented at ]. No other standard can do. ], who knows more about the situation may also know of reasons why this editor should be watched or why an admin, preferably with an interest in chemistry, may beneficially act as a point of reference if further issues of dispute may be raised. ]] 10:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good luck with that. ] (]) 10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a specific criticism here other than content disputes? Are there policies that have been violated? Edit warring? What exactly is the concern here other than disagreements about content? | |||
| * The editor who lodged this complaint of ] that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable". | |||
| * I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably ]ED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes. | |||
| ::I fail to see when looking at the edits how Formerly 98 has violated any Misplaced Pages policy. In fact, claims of "conflict of interest", "fraudulant editing", being "in bed with big pharma", and "Misplaced Pages and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry" show instead the clear bias of the complainants here. ] (]) 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Close and consider boomerang per ]. Primarily a local content dispute. Larger issues - OP is a newish editor who mostly edits martial arts articles, but has occassionally edited health-related articles with a strong bias against the medical mainstream and has, in good newbie-with-an-ax-to-grind fashion has liberally made personal attacks - charges of COI and bias - against editors who work to maintain NPOV content that gives weight to mainstream views - the very inappropriate title of this thread is an example, ditto : "revert formaly98 for conflict of interest, and blatant criticism removal." For examples of Bigbaby23's fringe-supporting edits on content related to health, see for a rant about mainstream v ] and "systemic bias" in WP; and ] for a discussion about his/her edits to ]). And the present content dispute, where Bigbaby23 restored content that was COPYVIO in his quest to rip on mainstream medicine. Bigbaby23 will eventually learn to edit appropriately or will get angry and leave the topic or the project altogether, or will get topic or site banned. Seen this tons of times on articles related to health. ] (]) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with Jytdog that this seems to be a boomerang. I initially felt Bigbaby23 was probably mostly wrong but since it appeared to be a content dispute, it wasn't worth mentioning here. However upon looking more closely, I noticed that Bigbaby23 called "reason of copy editing", was actually copyvio as several people have noticed. (I haven't looked in to the details to confirm it is a copyvio, I don't see much point when there's no one explicitly disputing it, since Bigbaby23 doesn't even seem to understand what's wrong.) The fact that Bigbaby23 would readd a copyvio for any reason, is quite concerning. Bigbaby23 may still be relatively new, but they really need to quickly learn what a copyvio is and why they shouldn't be reverting for any reason other than it being clearly established by someone who understands what they're doing that it isn't a copyvio, if they want to continue to edit here. ] (]) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I've been proven right, not to engage with Formaly69 directly, and bringing it here; see how he is totaly dishonest and doing his best to manipulate the system: | |||
| Quote: | |||
| * The editor who lodged this complaint of ] that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable". | |||
| He is linking to my revert on the fda criticism article, that has no copyvio issues, to which i did call "inexplicably ". He gave a bogus argument there, because it looks bad if head of fda said these things. | |||
| Quote: | |||
| * I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably ]ED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes. | |||
| Complete bullshit. Ref 8 is not "now" behind a paywall. It's in NY times archive. It has been behind paywall for years. He's been caught red handed, so desperatly he's trying to feed you something to keep you off track.] (]) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| So there may be some confusion on the issues here. Bigbaby, part of the material you restored is shown below and in this : | |||
| ::"Another major event in October 1969, was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Dr. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) ingredients, was criticized for the delay.That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Dr. Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals. Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food. | |||
| The source language is | |||
| ::"One major event was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of safe ingredients, was criticized for the delay. That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals.Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food." | |||
| Do you see the problem here? This is not allowed and creates liability for the Foundation. ] (]) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Nice try side tracking the issue. Indeed i said the copyvio, should be rewritten. | |||
| What raised alarm about Formally98, is that he specifically went after the hard criticism, trying to use different tactics to remove them. Here's a nice one: Formaly98 blanketed this paragraph, with the remark "Paragraph does not accurately describe the material in the source" : | |||
| Employees of the FDA recognized the agency had problems. in July 1969, the FDA released the “Kinslow report” commissioned by FDA commissioner Dr. Ley, the study concluded, “the American public’s principal consumer protection is provided by the food and drug administration, and we are currently not equipped to cope with the challenge”. In total, the panel submitted 45 recommendations to the commissioner. Dr. Ley did not have time to implement any suggestions. The New York Times in January 1970 reported in an article that "the HEW has done little to implement the report's suggestions, except to oust the man who set up the panel in the first place, Dr. Ley, Jr., and two of his top aides". | |||
| There is nothing complex about this paragraph, and there is no ambiguity in the sources. But this looks bad for formally98 Coin Pov] (]) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a content dispute. It does not belong here. That being said, the material in the article did not capture what is in the source. The article quotes the Kinslow Report in Misplaced Pages's voice. But the source says that the Kinslow Report was bunk and was repudiated by Kinslow himself. | |||
| :::"Regrettably, as the Chairman of the committee and the author of the final draft, the report became known as the Kinslow Report. I can assure you that the last thing I wanted was to have my name associated with that report. But regrettably that's what occurred. I find it almost beyond belief that, over thirteen years later, there are people who still dredge up that report." (page 45-46) | |||
| ::So this is the substance of your evidence that I'm here as some sort of industry shill? Did you read the source before you reverted? Or did the fact that the source says that the quoted report was bunk seem like an irrelevant issue to you?" ] (]) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::you are deliberetly clouding the citations. The text describing the Report in the paragraph are 2 secondary RS sources. And are represented accurately. You are quoting a primary source. | |||
| you are only very strict to wikipedia guidelines when you wikilawyer. | |||
| ::::Again, we are discussing a report that was repudiated by its own chairperson. And you felt that rather than going to the Talk page to discuss the content dispute, the best approach was to revert and then to come here and attack my character and accuse me of being a shill. This is not how we do things here. If you are going to be an editor long term, you need to read the rules. I'd suggest starting with ] and ]. ] (]) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The fact is, that you restored COPYVIO content which is a serious violation of '''policy'''. That is a "period, end of story" kind of thing - it doesn't matter what you intended to do later. And I don't see you discussing the content dispute with regard to ] (e.g. ], ], etc), which is what we do here, per ] and ]. What I am seeing is an inexperienced editor with an ax to grind, creating dramah and personalizing a content dispute in violation of ] and ]. That you continue to make unsupported allegations of COI, even here, is even more of a sign that you are ]. I am getting close to proposing a short term block. ] (]) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Concur entirely. Or to put it a different way, if you agree it's a copyvio, why on earth did you add it back to the article, and then come here and complain about it? And why did you say in your reply just before that "that has no copyvio issues"? The fact that you did suggests there's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but it's on your part Bigbaby23, not on the part of Formerly 98. The reason this discussions is getting "sidetracked" is nothing to do with Formerly 98 but instead because you yourself Bigbaby23 have basically demonstrated serious problems with your behaviour here on wikipedia, but are igoring the plenty of people telling you it is a serious problem. And until you can give a good explaination as to why you did so (but I don't think there is a good explaination), or at least show an understanding of why it was wrong and undertake never to do so again, I don't think anyone is going to really care about whatever other problems you claim to have. ] (]) 18:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see I was slightly confused here. The section Bigbaby23 linked to above, does appear to have no copyvio issues and does seem to have been linked, I guess mistakenly, by Formerly 98 as an example where Bigbaby23 readded copyvio. I apologise for confusion due to my above statement. But the point Bigbaby23 seems to have missed is that even if Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section, since Bigbaby23 did restore copyvios, it would be fine for Bigbaby23 to point out Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section. But thy have no evidence of dishonesty instead a simple mistake. Particularly since Bigbaby23 seems to acknowledge clearly below they were aware they did restore copyvios, so they must know they did restore copyvios. (As I said below, Bigbaby23's repeatedly downplaying and ignoring of the copyvio issue, instead bringing up irrelevant stuff doesn't give confidence that they understand the seriousness of the issue.) ] (]) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Close and suggest a boomerang.''' I don't see anything provided the violates policy or is otherwise problematic with Formerly 98, and this posting appears retaliatory. Editors that edit in articles where companies are involved shouldn't have to deal ] about being in bed with companies, shilling, etc. whenever a change is made that someone appearing to have a stereotypical "big bad corporate company" POV doesn't like by calling it whitewashing, etc. It's too common of an attitude that pop ups, especially with new editors, and shouldn't be entertained here. ] (]) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support boomerang''' For violations of ], for restoring content that violates ] and for edit warring. Bigbaby to the article while this discussion proceeds.] (]) 18:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: that is another lie that you are fabricating. Anyone can see the time stamp, and that i reverted you on that article prior to me opening thid ANI] (]) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' block of ]. When you come to ANI you need to have decent evidence. None is provided. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Boomerang proposal=== | |||
| OK, . '''Propose two week block on Bigbaby23 for violating COPYVIO and NPA''' ] (]) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support per reasons previously listed in section above.''' Doesn't seem like it's getting across that this behavior is problematic or is going to stop. ] (]) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| So an editor (formaly98) that his whole contribution history on wikipedia is only deleting criticism of big pharma under a plethora of wikilayering, even if copyvio, his intentions are against wikipedia's rules intentions. I have demonstrayed that he fabricated a sentence contrary to citation. But nobody seemed to comment on this serious offense so far. This ANI is supposed to replace all the potential tedious editing and arguments in all the articles he "sanitizes"] (]) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me say this one last time. It doesn't matter why Formerly 98 removed a copyvio. If Formerly 98 says they are removing it for copyvio reasons, it's unacceptable to add it back for any reason, except there being good evidence it's not a copyvio. Adding back a copyvio is far more serious than anything you are claiming Formerly 98 has done. So even if your claims are true, it's completely normal and unsurprising people are largely ignoring your claims, when you are ignoring the people telling you your behaviour there was quite unacceptable. ] (]) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reverted Formaly98 cart blanch deletions in one revert in the Ley article, because it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony . his reasons for deletion there were a mix of reasons, and after he reverted me back warning me about the copyvio, i did nothing more in that article (so only my initial general revert). I am not ignoring anything in this ANI; In my first paragraph here, i state "so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later". No fighting on this on my part. Copyvio is clear and next time I'll be more careful . Now on the other hand, editor jytdog has done nice work to try to delegitimise me from the very onset of this ANI. its a tactic ive seen in the past to try to make others not take seriously a newer editor complaints - especially valid ones. but im happy to see that new contributers on this ANI, are focusing back on the ANI subject itself. ] (]) 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know I said that would be my last comment, but it sounds like we may be finally moving forward even if only slightly. First let me repeat again, no one really cares why Formerly 98 removed the content if it was copyvio. If it was copyvio there is zero justification to add it back unless you have good reason to think it isn't copyvio. Even if it was only part copyvio and way more content was removed than needed to be, it still wouldn't be okay to add it back except perhaps if you very quickly then removed the actual copyvios. Heck even if Formerly 98 was a highly problematic sockpuppet who kept violating their ban, it wouldn't be okay to readd content remove for copyvio; except that it's possible in that case sometimes you can safely assume it isn't a copyvio without further investigating. And it doesn't matter that much what you plan on doing with those paragraphs in the future, provided you aren't planning to re-add copyvios. What is much more important is that you understand you should never have reverted a copyvio removal, no matter why you believe it was removed, unless as I said, you had good reason to think it wasn't copyvio. This is the first time you seem to have properly acknowledged you shouldn't have done so, but unfortunately it's still not enough for me since you still seem to be insisting on talking about why Formerly 98 removed it, which as I've said is largely irrelevant if it were copyvio. P.S. I don't think blaming other editors for your own mistakes is helping your case. The reality is you continually failed to acknowledge the copyvio problem. If you had accepted that you made a major mistake in re-adding the copyvio and were able to sufficiently allay concerns that you would do it again, perhaps at least me and others would have been more willing to look in to other aspects of your complaint, even if to be honest, there were a lot of other things suggesting it was without merit. But this didn't happen, and you only have yourself to blame. ] (]) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The copyvio judgement mistake i made was in GF and due to my inexperience, and certainly i will not repeat it in the future. I did not say anything before about it, because i was sure it was evident that this is my position. Now that this is clear beyond doubt. It's time to deal with a malicious error done by Formely98: falsifying text. 99% of his contributions on wikipedia non other than coin pov pushing. His wikilawyering and abuse of the system is in practice on this very ANI as i presented above, and how he is reacting to another editor below. Make him the perfect candidat for a topic ban at the bare minimum.] (]) 11:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So per your reasoning, its completely acceptable for you to re-add anti-corporate material that has been pointed out to be a misstatement of the content of a cited source, but if I make a bad edit that is tilted in the other direction, it is prima facie evidence of being a shill, of "whitewashing", of "malicious editing", and "coin POV pushing". | |||
| :::::You're still not understanding the issues here. Outside the provisions of ], Misplaced Pages becomes a circus in which we all fight out every difference of opinion by attacking each other's character and motivations. I could equally well suggest that your re-addition of the Kinslow report material was a deliberate effort to mislead readers in support of your political viewpoints. But in the final analysis, that sort of personal attack does not help us move the articles forward. There needs to be a laser like focus on content, and not speculation about others' motives. This is a big problem and you need to change it. ] (]) 12:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's good that you've finally said that. However by now I have no interest in looking in to any more of your allegations. Beyond the fact they don't seem to be well supported, your attitude here suggests to me it would be a waste of time. Plenty of people pointed out the copyvio problem here. You persistently ignored them despite the fact people kept saying it was a problem, and instead kept bringing up irrelevant stuff like the reasons Formerly 98 may have removed the copyvio content. Remember that Formerly 98 made it clear the first time around they were removing it for copyvio reasons. Now even when you've finally acknowledged the problem, you claim it should have been always clear, despite the earlier outlined facts (i.e. you persistently ignoring the concerns repeatedly expressed and bringing up irrelevant stuff). Not to mention the problems Formerly 98 outlined above. ] (]) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Nil Einne}}, I'm going to disagree with your remarks that Bigbaby's more recent comments are a step forward. He continues with his unsupported bad faith editing accusations which I see as equally problematic with the COPYVIO restorations. To quote | |||
| :::::"it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony " | |||
| ::::Even here at ANI, we move forward and make decisions based on proven violations of policy and guidelines, NOT on the basis of assumptions that anyone making edits that we disagree with is editing in bad faith. What Bigbaby is admitting to here and doing so without any sign that he realizes its a problem, is that he saw edits he disagreed with and immediately assumed bad faith. Neither I nor any other editor should be subjected to these unsupported personal attacks just because we had the temerity to make an edit that was out of accord with some other editor's anti-corporate viewpoints. It needs to be made clear that accusations of bad faith editing as an argument of first resort are simply unacceptable. | |||
| ::::I made a bad edit here and I still can't figure out how it happened. But that does not justify the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions that BigBaby feels free to spout as if they were proven allegations. Its really inappropriate. ] (]) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well I would disagree with you on that. I'm not saying Bigbaby23's behaviour doesn't show problems because it does. But it's not as serious as the copyvio issue. Ultimately the harm that editors showing the behaviour you outlined is rarely as serious as editors who add copyvio material. Editors who do so can easily waste many, many hours of time, tracking down their contributions, making sure none of them are copyvio, and deleting those which are copyvio, remembers that it isn't unheard of that months or even years have passed since the material was added and it's been worked on by many different editors, efforts which will all go to waste because the material has to be deleted. While editors showing the behaviour you outlined do often waste time, it's often not as serious, in particular because it's unlikely to be something people will only notice years later, and even if it is, it usually just means some of the articles they worked on may be unbalanced. In terms of making other editors feel uncomfortable or reluctant to edit, I agree it's a serious problem, and one which has to be dealt with, but the question is how. It isn't always the case this should be a straight indef block, sometimes there may be an attempt to work with the editor and see if they can change while offering support to those who feel their are being unfairly maligned. (I'm not saying this is the case here, simply it can be.) By comparison, if an editor does seem able to understand what a copyright violation is, or that they shouldn't be re/adding them, I don't see there's much choice but an indef block to prevent harm to wikipedia. ] (]) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I and others have really tried to explain the rules here about ] and ] but he is simply defiant. Not generally a big fan of sanctions, but sometimes they are an important learning tool. Personal attacks and unsupported allegations are not acceptable as an argument of first resort, and knowingly restoring ] material is not acceptable under any circumstances. BigBaby has not communicated that he will refrain from either behavior in the future, and has in fact given every indication that he plans to continue in the same vein. ] (]) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' based on Jytdog's reasoning. ] (]) 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <s>* '''Support''' frankly I'd be willing to support an indef (which remember is not a permanent) block since they've not only given zero indication they understand why reverting a copyvio is unacceptable, they've also given zero indication they even are trying to understand despite multiple people telling them. ] (]) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| '''Support''' 2 week block. Now that after so many attempts, Bigbaby23 has finally properly accepted that they should never re-add copyvios, no matter what they feel is they were removed (when they may genuinely be copyvios), I no longer see the need for an indef. But I do agree their behaviour as shown here is highly problematic. Even to get them to come around to the copyvio issue, it not only took way too long, but when they did their claim is they were always saying that. Despite the fact it's easy to see that several people brought it up, and they largely ignored it, instead keep talking about how Formerly 98 allegedly removed the copyvio for bad reasons. And continued even after I repeatedly point out this was irrelevant if the content was indeed copyvio. A short block will at least stop further such problems for now. Hopefully it will also make them realise they need to learn to collobrate better. (A long through their talk page history is also instructive. They've repeatedy removed people discussing problems with them which is their right, but have done so with uncivil edit summaries suggesting there is no problm, not exactly a sign of someone who is interested in collobrating and learning from their mistakes.) ] (]) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * BigBaby is an inexperienced and new user on Misplaced Pages which should be taken into context when looking at this situation. However, this isn't the first time that Formerly98 has antagonized a new users on Misplaced Pages. Issues have been raised about him about half a dozen times in the past year and they are generally calling out the same thing. They suggest he is 'whitewashing' negative comments about the pharmaceutical industry. It is easy to point fingers at a new user when they are unfamiliar with the customs of Misplaced Pages but Formerly98 needs to be called out for this as well. I have yet to see him constructively approach editors with whom he disagrees to try to reach a compromise and a real consensus. Many times he brashly reverts edits without adjustments which in and of itself is against Misplaced Pages policy. The organization Rxisk has even covered his editing patterns independently. http://wp.rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-wikipedia-falls/ I have personally asked him if he is a paid editor - a fair question since this is not an activity that is prohibited by Misplaced Pages - and he simply refused to answer and got aggressive with me. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? ] (]) 04:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Lots of issues with this users work. May need longer block if issues continue. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::I'm just going to point out that Doors22 is a ] editor who has engaged in a campaign of retaliatory editing since my removal of material not supported by ] compliant sources from the ] article last year, and his comments here should be interpreted in that light. The current edit appears to be in retaliation for my comments on his proposed article on the , which consists of 3 part time employees investigating a proposed syndrome for which there are no ] compliant sources for the existence of. | |||
| :::* are on the subject of finasterside, Merck (its manufacturer), or baldness experts who have endorsed finasteride | |||
| :::*Over half of the remaining 10% are retaliatory edits, in which he reverts my edits or jumps in on the other side of a debate from me on an article he has never shown interest in before | |||
| :::* Diffs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rapid fire reversions and votes on the other side of the issue from me on ], which occurred shortly after I removed some improperly sourced material from ]. is a quickly written rebuttal to a comment by me in a discussion on the talk page. , is a reversion of my edit, and in he takes the opposite side from me in an RFC. Note that he had never before edited the article, and this came . | |||
| :::* Ditto 2 weeks later, in which I become involved in a dispute on ]. In , Doors, who has nearly zero history of editing any non-Finasteride related article, jumps in to rebut my comments in a Talk page discussion here as well. In , he jumps in in a bizarre way to muddle the discussion after I have asked for clarification of a point from another editor. Again, in , more of the same. Again, once the controversy dies down, he shows no interest in the article or making any edits. Once there is no longer a controversy that he can join sides against me in, he loses interest. ] (]) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| * '''Support''' Problematic editing/begaviour in evidence. A cooling off period may help. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - given Formerly98's slow but steady whitewashing described at ], I don't think it is appropriate to sanction anyone pointing out similar patterns of behavior arising from the same editor. ] (]) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::EllenCT that is irrelevant. This proposal is about BigBaby's behavior, upon which you didn't comment. ] (]) 04:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::BigBaby is reacting to Formerly 98's behavior, so it is relevant. ] (]) 06:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. There is no excuse for violating COPYVIO, ever, and there are ways to address concerns about behavior without resorting to personal attacks. You are not dealing with Bigbaby's actual behavior. ] (]) 14:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <strike> | |||
| ===Proposed 1 week block for Doors22 for retaliatory editing=== | |||
| '''Per the comments immediately above, I propose a 1 week block for Doors22 for engaging in retaliatory editing'''. ] (]) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :I am not retaliating for your recent edits. I saw an incident was raised about you on the noticeboard and since I have a lot of experience with your editing behavior I decided to contribute. I hope you appreciate the irony in that you are trying to get me banned for retaliatory editing, simply because I contributed my opinion about your editing history. Many others have complained about you in the past year and some have even filed formal complaints. Speaking of editing history, 90%+ of your edits are for removing or toning down side effect profiles of a variety of drugs or removing criticisms of multinational corporations. This editing history is suggestive of somebody who is a paid editor. Are you in any way receiving money directly or indirectly for your edits on Misplaced Pages? This is not a strictly prohibited practice per Wiki policy but you would certainly be required to fully disclose this. ] (]) 05:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because this is ANI and not an article Talk page, I am going to say this once (and only once). I do not have any COIs with respect to the content of any pharmaceutical product or company, and have never performed paid editing. You've made these accusations repeatedly on article Talk pages, in violation of multiple guidelines, and without any supportive documentation other than that you disagreed with the particular edits. The issue here is not COI on my part, but your retaliatory editing and non-stop violations of ] and ]. ] (]) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Striking - I over reacted. I do work a lot on articles related to drugs, pharma, the FDA, etc. A lot of these articles have what I find to be an anti-pharma POV and I have done a lot of work over the past year to bring more NPOV (as that is defined here) to these articles as well as adding content that makes these articles more complete (well-sourced content on their uses, their impact, and controversies (yes, I add negative information too). Along the way I have come under attack by lots of anti-pharma advocates, or as in the case of Doors, editors who lock in on their perceptions of side effects of drugs and give them UNDUE weight here (you would be surprised... or maybe not when you think about it) how much of that is. And many of them are quick to fling charges of COI. And sometimes the accusations of bad faith get under my skin. I lost my cool there, sorry. ] (]) 14:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :These comments specifically relate to your most recent ANI and even earlier ones since this issue keeps coming up. If you want me to extend the "supportive documentation" I am happy to do so. I can easily locate 50+ incidents of you removing, diminishing, or countering statements of litigation, criticisms, or controversies of various pharmaceutical companies or products. In fact this represents the large majority of your work. The remainder is more of the same for other companies like Coca Cola, Mallinckrodt, Dow Chemical among others. I will go ahead and begin to compile this list if other editors would find this helpful. At the very least, please review ] because you should be assisting new editors rather than driving them away and trying to penalize them. ] (]) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see that you struck your comments as soon as I offer to compile a list of supportive documentation, which would be so long it would take hours if done exhaustively. I honestly have yet to see you offer "negative information" and your editing history at the very least has a very strong POV and possibly suggests you are an editor with undisclosed conflict of interests. You also answered you do not have a ] with respect to the "content of any pharmaceutical product or company" but I noticed this does not fully answer the question if you have any COIs to disclose relating to any of your edits. Again, this is not a problem so long as the ] is disclosed to give other editors context. I ask other editors involved in this ANI if it would be helpful for me to begin to compile this list of supportive evidence. Again, this is not an unreasonable discussion and I will be willing to find multiple other recent instances where it was believed Formerly98 had a POV or COI related to his editing.] (]) 14:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please provide your list of supportive documentation. Honestly, Doors, lets have the discussion here on the ANI page where it belongs. It is time to put an end to unsupported allegations on the Talk pages. But simply striking poorly sourced negative information is not evidence of COI, anymore than your singleminded focus on criticizing finasteride, Merck, and baldness gurus who have endorsed finasteride is evidence that you work for tort lawyers engaged in litigation against Merck. If you have credible evidence that I have accepted money in exchange for editing services, or that I work for any of the companies whose pages I have edited, that woiuld be appropriate to include in your list. Otherwise you are just speculating in violation of ] ] (]) 14:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Doors, that is yet more assuming bad faith. Editors who react emotionally and then strike shouldn't get punished for acknowledging a mistake and your connecting the strike, to what you wrote, is yet more bad-faith sloppy conspiracy thinking. Likewise, your continued charge of COI against Formerly is '''without foundation''' and if you continue to make that charge, I will take action against you for ]. COI is a very serious issue in WP and I work a lot on it; but ax-griding editors like you, and like BigBaby, reach for that irresponsibly and use it as a weapon in arguments about content. You ~may~ have a case to bring related to ] but without actual evidence of COI (and you have '''none'''), you <u>must stop making clams of COI..</u> I am dead serious about that and I ''will'' move to bring action against you if you continue. You are warned. ] (]) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: And Doors, you have a bad history of making personal attacks on the ] article - this is just some of it: | |||
| :::::* Back in 2011, when {{u|Jfdwolff}}, an admin, was working on that article with you, you ] and claimed he had a among other bad behavior. He even then that your account was a ] and that if you kept being uncivil, you risked a longterm block. | |||
| :::::* In Oct 2014 Jfdwolff noted "I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Didn't we agree that we needed to be very selective about sources in this highly disputed area? Doors22 isn't anything if not persistent." and later "my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Misplaced Pages as a ] since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Misplaced Pages to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied." {{u|Doc James}} was involved in those discussions as well. | |||
| :::::* In Oct 2014 you turned another content dispute in the article into a personal attack, now against Formerly, : "I added another meta analysis draws the opposite conclusion. They both look at a similar number of studies, but one journal is of a higher quality than the other. Formerly 98, are you getting paid to edit Misplaced Pages? It seems to be a full time endeavor for you since you are editing at all hours of the day. The majority of your edits involve reversions about side effects or information that is not favorable to pharmaceutical companies" and later you , writing " I also noticed you live in San Diego, where a lot of pharmaceutical/biotech companies are located and you have referred to yourself as an "industry guy". For all I know, you could simply own Merck stock and nothing more. Do you have any conflicts of interest that would affect your edits on this article? " | |||
| :::::* You followed up on that, with a , again accusing him of COI. | |||
| :::::* to back off the personal attacks and irresponsible accusations of COI. | |||
| :::::So really Doors, you are ] (per your ), dedicated to emphasizing the sexual side of effects of Finasteride in WP. You make personal attacks all the time to further your agenda and seem to believe that editors who uphold Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and MEDRS guideline must be on the take from Big Pharma. As I did before, I suggest you <u>stop making personal attacks to further your agenda here.</u> ] (]) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :These examples are taken out of context and are very dated, going back to 2011. Some of your comments are factually inaccurate too. I do not see how anything I have posted in this incident is a personal attack, visit ] and please tell me how my behavior fits any of those categories. I have stuck strictly to Formerly98's editing behavior. I am not a complete newbie in Misplaced Pages but I am also far from a seasoned editor. Will you please provide some guidance on what kind of "proof" is required to demonstrate a COI? I am not as familiar with whatever standard is generally accepted and this can be somewhat arbitrary. What you are suggesting to me seems like it is literally impossible to show evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest if he/she chooses not to disclose any but showing POV or advocacy (which would result from paid editing or some other COI) should be no problem. ] (]) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===COI and edits by Formerly 98=== | |||
| I specifically request that {{ping|Doors22}} presents the list of evidence that he feels proves that I have a ] for evaluation as part of this ANI review. I further request that the list be evaluated by the other editors here, and that he be asked to stop making these accusations on article Talk pages in the event that the evidence is not found to be supportive. ] (]) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I will certainly oblige you but it may take me some time to get to this. I will be away beginning tomorrow evening and may not be able to respond fully until sometime next week. 04:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| '''User:Formerly98 has received attention off Misplaced Pages regarding alleged COI / POV editing.''' The website www.rxisk.org features an article specifically about User:Formerly98 It shows a previous version of user page, discusses his deletion nomination of an article on Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction, and inquires: “Do we expect Misplaced Pages posts to be more conservative than the label produced by the pharmaceutical company?” which is apparently referring to Formerly98’s work in “toning down” the side effects on the ] and ] articles.--] (]) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Formerly explicitly says there, that he has no COI. More bad-faith editors crying COI - and you have now joined the ranks - doesn't any more real. BoboMeowCat, that if you continue making unsubstantiated charges of COI I will seek action against you. You are warned. COI is not something to throw around in a content dispute. And you, like Doors, have POV-pushed on side effects of drugs. (in your case, asthma as an effect of acetaminophen. You are another editor who has tried to violate NPOV and MEDRS and made personal attacks as you pushed your POV. ] (]) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''I request that we just play this out without threats of disciplinary action and have these arguments evaluated by the community'''] (]) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What is going on here is a witch-hunt by a newbie angry editor (OP), and two well-known POV-pushers. I don't think going down the "throw down" path is good for anybody or WP, but as you will. ] (]) 02:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We have 3 editors here making the same accusation in nearly every interaction I have with them, and several others who have not yet posted on this thread. I suggest we ask the community to evaluate, and then we will have a consensus one way or the other. At some point we need a clearly voiced community decision, either that I am allowed to edit in peace and without constant aspersions, or that the overall community believes that I need to change my editing practices. I don't see that as a "throw down". What I don't want is to be back here next month. ] (]) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thanks for explaining that. Put that way, this makes a lot of sense. ] (]) 14:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In my experience here, it doesn't seem like warnings get the point across that this behavior in inappropriate to editors that do this (often with an ax to grind). I wouldn't see interaction bans for certain users completely unwarranted depending on how the conversation goes. I'm not seeing anything right now that shows a legitimate COI or even POV concern on your part Formerly, so it's still looking like these accusations against you are aspersions at best. ] (]) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you Bob. The Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Article was nominated by me for deletion, but was deleted by community consensus, so that may not be the best example. But here are the Diffs for Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin before and after I rewrote both, removing about about half of the total content of each and adding new material. I'd request the community to examine these for POV, as I am overwhelmingly responsible for the current state of these articles, though some of the work was performed as an IP editor and some under a previous username. | |||
| ::Ciprofloxacin | |||
| :: | |||
| ::::It really isn't very helpful for you to provide your own examples of how you are a balanced editor. Others would have to independently look through the history of your edits to verify for themselves. They will see the overwhelming majority of your posts involve toning down side effect profiles and criticisms of large corporations.] (]) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Those weren't my choices they were BobMeowCat's. ] (]) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Basically we follow ] for medical content. While he and I may occasionally disagree, ] uses high quality sources nearly all the time and thus I have not significant concerns. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand that he uses what is deemed to be high quality sources for what he adds but this alone does not make a NPOV editor. Removing material that you don't want on an article does not require you provide any sources at all. There is the famous quote, 'there is no such thing as truth, only the presentation of facts'. One can easily finds one reason or another that fits some kind of policy to remove unwanted material and create a desired perspective. All the while avoiding providing any sources if one wishes.] (]) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::My 2¢: basing a COI argument relative to a manufacturer's Rx info (the label) is a a bit asinine, as these vary by country due to regulatory/approval processes for the document. E.g., a ] approved label by Aspen pharmaceuticals lists suicidality, aggression, and homicidal tendencies as potential adverse effects of amphetamine in spite of the fact that it acknowledges elsewhere in the document that these are just isolated aftermarket reports w/ no comparison to placebo (these events could in fact occur ''less frequently'' vs people on a placebo). The current USFDA-approved label by Amedra pharmaceuticals is thankfully much less hand-wavy and doesn't list suicidality or homicidal tendencies as "potential adverse effects" and further notes that there is no systematic evidence of any relationship between stimulants and aggressive behaviors (this is a comparison between arbitrary conjecture and evidence-based medicine ).<br /> So, with all that said, it raises the question: which label are we comparing the WP article to, an evidence-based label or one which would better serve as toilet paper than a wikipedia citation? The way we at ] resolve issues like this is to apply ], which is something I know Formerly does based upon my interactions with him in every article we've both worked on.<br />{{nut}}TLDR: arguing that Formerly has a COI simply by comparing his edits to the adverse effects on ''an arbitrary label'' is completely retarded. ] (] | ]) 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Both Formerly98 and Jytdog joined in to remove referenced COI statements on the Glaxo Smith Kline article. Formerly98 and removed the claim from the Johnson and Johnson page ] 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Diffs please ] (]) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It is late so I don't have time to pull up specific diffs but Formerly98 was very active on the e-cigarette page until it was temporarily frozen. I initially thought it was so strange that he was more or less exclusively involved in making pro-drug statements while being anti-e-cigarettes. But then I did some very quick research and saw the pharmaceutical industry was strongly lobbying against e-cigarettes because it threatens their existing products (ie Nicorette). In the example above, Formerly98 removed this mention from the GSK article because it lacked 'notability' which is a very common page from his playbook. At the very least, it is suspicious and certainly indicates a strong point of view.] (]) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Diffs please. thanks. ] (]) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Here is one example from Mallinckrodt where you reverted another user's edit that discussed the company's history of illegal waste dumping and justified this by saying the company had a "complex series of takeovers and spinouts" so that historical actions are no longer associated with the current company. | |||
| ::::Thank you, I assume then that you disagree with this edit. How does it establish COI?] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: In another example, you deleted 2 sentences on sleep talking caused by Ambien because you arbitrarily deemed them to be too rare. | |||
| ::::I reduced the number of sentences from 6 to 4. I understand that you disagree. What is the basis of your belief that 6 is the correct number? How does this establish COI? ] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Here you edit David Healy's article (who is the doctor who independently brought attention to your edits off wikipedia) and you felt the need to replace a neutral tone with a more aggressive tone. | |||
| ::::I see that I attibuted a statement made by Healy to Healy instead of stating his conclusionhs in Misplaced Pages's voice. I understand you disagree. How does this establish COI?] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Another example of a separate editor believing you to have a bias and POV which you correctly decided to strike. Notably this is on the e-cigarette page. | |||
| ::::This appears to be a Talk page discussion, so maybe off-topic. ] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Here you completely erase discussion of regulatory capture on the pharmaceutical industry page, despite it being a widely accepted topic of controversy that generates substantial discussion in the outside world and academic circles. | |||
| ::::I'm not seeing "completely erase", what I see is a reduction from 4 sentences to 2. I assume you believe that 4 was the correct number of sentences? How does this establish COI?] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This one is quite telling. You deleted well sourced but negative facts about Merck that discussed unethical actions they took during past controversies. You wrote the article should "tell the story and let the readers decide", but really you just erased the negative evidence which was really descriptive and not judgmental. | |||
| ::::This was probably not my best edit, but it is one of many that I made to the article, including restoring a section describing the company's products, which one editor had deleted as "unimportant". How does this establish COI? ] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Here you completely remove a section from the pharmaceutical industry about "me-too" drugs which is another very commonly discussed issue that obviously belongs on this page in some fashion. | |||
| :::: True, but the section was actually pretty balanced and not all that critical of the industry, and as the edit summary notes, it was based on out of date refs. How does this establish COI?] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is just a very small sample of what look like POV/advocacy editing to me and there are hundreds of more examples. I strongly suggest other users take a look through his contribution history because his contribution history looks like it was written by a PR professional (at least to me). ] (]) 05:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I second this recommendation. I described what I saw in their editing, specifically with the Depression and Astro Zeneca articles circa May 31 and early June 2014, . Seeing just a few day's worth of this person's edits (spindoctoring on steroids) was the final straw for me before throwing up my hands and ending my editing here at WP. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: It was the Anti-depressant article that first alerted me to this activity. is a talk page section to help navigate, but I am unwilling to spend time digging for diffs. If one were to peruse F98's contribs in early June 2014, they would see what I saw. It doesn't take a sleuth in this case, it's extremely obvious pro-Pharma, SPA editing. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So your position is that you are recommending sanctions but "are not willing to put in the time to generate the diffs"? Hmm. ] (]) 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi Petrarchan, could you please provide actual article diffs? Thanks. ] (]) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think merely providing diff's is the best way to go about this because other users who don't have history discussing matters with Formerly98 will completely miss out from seeing the whole context of his edits which is very important. Do any more experienced editors have any suggestions for how to best proceed with this COI/advocacy issue? I mentioned I will be away for the next few days starting tomorrow and would like to contribute to this conversation so please don't interpret my absence as though I am finished with the discussion. | |||
| :I do think it is pretty telling that Formerly98's 'spin doctoring' drove away the editor above and when I have more time will be able to point out examples where he proactively drove other editors away. I also think it is telling that he tried to get me banned because I tried to contribute to this discussion and he attempted to backed down when he was concerned the issue might escalate to an investigation of his behavior.] (]) 12:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Doors, I think what you need to do here is to establish some criteria for "COI" and "POV editing" that don't measure POV by the distance between the viewpoint expressed and your own opinions. | |||
| :::I think your statement that I "backed down when he was concerned that the issue might escalate into an invesigation of his behavior" is hard to reconcile with the fact that I invited the exact discussion we are having now. And so far, all you have brought to the table are content disputes. ] (]) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Taken as a whole; formely98 contribuion history is that of a duck, his edit/delete arguments are that of a duck, and his tactics even on this ANI are that of a duck. Formelly98 is a duck. | |||
| ::lets not forget, that his initial response here to the fraudulent statement he added to the Ley article "oh it was a different reference i cited, but now its behind a paywall" a.k.a we cant verify his claim now, i easly demonstrated was a total lie ; it was a NY Times archived article that has been behind a paywall for years. He felt comfortable because due to jytdog theatrics, they went after me and let him slide. But the moment i reached some kind of understanding with editor niel, and editor doors was also accusing him, formely98 felt the shift in the tide, paniced and changed his tune, first he erased his attack on doors and then also changed his story about the fraudulent statement he added "im sorry i don't know how that happened". He should be banned just for lying and manipulating the ANI panel.] (]) 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I obviously disagree with this for reasons cited above. Importantly, I never claimed that the source was in the paywalled article only that I thought it might be but could not check it for myself. ] (]) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I am here because recent edits to an article flagged by my database queries showing heavy editing on economically sensitive topics compelled me to examine Formerly 98's contributions for the first time. I urge administrators and other interested parties to examine the issues raised at ] where Formerly 98 has over the past few years been slowly scrubbing the most uncomfortable criticism from that article. ] (]) 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair Ellen, its not strictly true that you "felt compelled to examine Formerly 98's contributions for the first time" based on a database search. You and I have taken opposing stances on multiple issues over the last year, recently at ], , and . And your proposals at ] failed to gain consensus. Given the support I recieved from other editors there, who as group rejected your suggested changes, how can this be used as evidence of POV editing or COI? ] (]) 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is completely untrue. The group did not reject her edits by any means. They were discussed constructively and a compromise was reached. I have yet to see you engage in this kind of discussion. Any editor who takes the time to do the research on this investigation will see you are not telling the truth.] (]) 04:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In all of our previous interactions, I had not, nor did I feel it would be a worthwhile use of my time, to look through your specific contributions instead of just individual article histories. That changed when I saw you trying to obscure a pharmaceutical company's ] in the same manner that a new SPA who had been reverted six times for it had just done. ] (]) 06:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Formerly 98's response to the comments above==== | |||
| '''I deliberately opened up this discussion in order to illustrate the level and type of personal attacks that I deal with on a daily basis as an editor here.''' Above we have over 2000 words of criticism from editors who accuse me of being a POV editor and having undisclosed COIs. Representative evidence includes: | |||
| * My removal of ] from the article ] (evidence of being a undisclosed paid editor) | |||
| :::::his indescriminate removal of negative criticism some were copyvio and some were not, and that was in the Herbert Ley article and if he couldn't think of a reason or pduedo reason that would some how pass to remove material, he would add stuff to tone down the criticism, and when he even didn't have that, he simply fabricated a sentence and added it, to yet again, nalify criticism. In the FDA article he removed a previous head of FDA criticism against big pharma influence in the fda, giving balony reasons.] (]) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::you are further discrediting yourself with this ranting, Bigbaby. ] (]) 04:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I have been criticized on the website of a virulently anti-industry activist and author. If fringe websites are criticizing my edits, I'm not sure that should be viewed as a problem, should it? | |||
| * One editor noted that I edited Electronic cigarette in a way that was perceived as negative, and noting that some pharmaceutical companies sell competing quit smoking products, concluded that this was evidence that my edits were driven by a desire to increase pharmaceutical company profits. This reasoning seems a little circular to me. | |||
| * Several authors present as examples of "POV pushing" changes that I made that were supported by consensus upon challenge. I'm not sure how I can win consensus so consistently if I am a fringe POV pusher. | |||
| :* ], in which my edits were challenged and supported by editor consensus | |||
| :* Another example of my "POV/COI editing" is the deletion of the Post-SSRI Sexual Disorder article, which was not deleted by me by by community consensus after I nominated it | |||
| :* Finally, we have the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles, which I rewrote and which by community consensus, remain in almost exactly the state I left them in when I finished editing them a year ago. How do extreme POV articles that get 1000 hits a day remain almost completely unedited for a year when they are so commonly accessed? | |||
| Some of the other remarks simply seem silly. One editor links to an exchange that occurred several months ago that "drove her to stop editing". But her editing history shows she is still active. Another claims to have discovered by POV editing by a database search, but s/he and I have a history of editing disagreements that far predates the reported date of the search that my name putatively appeared in. | |||
| '''I respectfully request closure with a warning to all that ] will be more vigorously enforced in the future, and that I be guaranteed the ability to edit here in peace without being continuously the subject of speculative personal attacks by those who view disagreement with their position as proof positive of paid editing and COI.'''' As noted here by the Head of the Misplaced Pages Medicine Project and other medical editors, my editing has generally been well sourced and high quality. I deserve to be allowed to go about my business without being abused by those who believe personal attacks are the best argument of first resort. | |||
| ] (]) 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really don't think you get to be the one to determine when closure has been attained for an investigation about your behavior. It also shows you were not acting in good faith when you engaged in this discussion to prove a point. The problem generally is not with what information you add to articles but what you delete. Your justifications are very frequently off base and indicative you are trying to erase negative information. Let me ask you - why are you the only editor that seems to be getting a negative response from many others when you claim your edits are objective and high quality?] (]) 03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here is another that shows an edit I found particularly repugnant. You erased a reference that a pharmaceutical company produced Zyklon B, the poisonous gas that was used by the Nazis to murder millions of people. Your justification, again, was very weak and you tried to say that Bayer was responsible for manufacturing the poison, the the conglomerate. This makes no sense as it is on the Bayer article that you thought this was irrelevant, but this would certainly warrant more than a passing mention even on a parent level article. I don't always disagree with your edits or points but I almost always disagree with the tactics you use to bury negative information. I am not inviting you to respond to this message but I am including this for other editors to see, evaluate, and comment.] (]) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That reason given was "Bayer <> IG Farben". That diff was a month ago, and there have been about 20 edits by other editors since then, and it has stuck. So hm. And, btw, way to pull the Nazi argument. Lovely. You have reached the ] stage of desperate argumentation. ] (]) 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions of the historical actions of actual nazis. ] (]) 06:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm unfamiliar with Godwin's law but after looking at the article it certainly does not apply to this discussion. I never compared him to the Nazis but drew attention to the fact he erased corporate ties to the Nazis on various articles. However, you are wrong that IG Farben <> Bayer as they were the same company during the years of the Holocaust - the company was split up after the war. Formerly98 has also removed instances of corporate link to the Nazis in other articles as well - is another one. This latest justification is also off-point and repugnant. 'It is OK and not notable because everybody had links to the Nazis.' Another two solid examples of his pattern of whitewashing corporate controversy. I request other editors contribute because JYTDog has a long history of collaborating with Formerly98 on many articles and is not being objective about this. When I get the time, I am going to retrieve instances where other editors have directly had similar problems with him but that may need to wait until next week.] (]) 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Not quite sure what the point is that some are trying to make here, but when an appropriate argument was made, during the same war after it had been removed by others</u>. Not exactly the behavior expected of a good Nazi, is it? | |||
| ::::::::::So this provides yet another example of this same group of editors cherry picking data to make their point and accusing me of POV editing for changes that were approved by editor consensus. '''Once again I respectfully request closure and a warning to all participants in this thread that ] will be rigorously enforced with sanctions moving forward.''' ] (]) 07:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::On the cotrary. This proves what a manipulative liar you are. You were vigorously against adding the nazi info to the Bayer article, with all sorts of your usual twisted arguments. You decided to re-insert that paragraph only when it was made clear to you, and you checked it yourself, that Bayer's own website history page, also tells this fact in their wwii history chronichal] (]) 10:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Again, do not pretend like I called you a Nazi because that is simply untrue and I have been completely civil during this discussion unlike yourself. After extensive discussion and pushback on the page you reluctantly added back a mention that the company used slave labor for a concentration camp to prevent more serious material from coming back. Hypothetically, if my agenda were to make Bayer look good I'd rather mention the use of labor than being accomplice to millions of murders. Moreover, you characterize this as being one instance of many companies that collaborated with the Nazis but completely fail to mention Bayer was the only company to create its own concentration camp, , during the war. Request for closure declined until you actually get feedback from independent editors who review your history. Your easily anticipated defense that we are cherry picking data is why I have repeatedly requested editors look through your history holistically.] (]) 12:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: Your note states that I readded the slave camp material after "extensive pushback". Thats not true. Someone else had deleted it and I added it back as soon as I saw a persuasive Talk page post that convinced me it belonged there. ] (]) 13:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::I'm starting to get a little dizzy from all your spin. Other editors - check out the actual discussion to see how it evolved from start to finish. I actually think this discussion is not in the proper place which is why we have not seen feedback other than the few other users that had problems with Formerly98. I'll do some research to figure out proper protocol and reset discussion in the proper location when I get the chance. ] (]) 14:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ==Viktorengström's SPA campaign on Stalinism?== | |||
| {{User|Viktorengström}} did his first edit on 3 January 2015 to a category that Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia were show trials. Curiously his next edits were to ] to has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin, which relates to the issue at hand which is very narrow editing area related to Stalinism, communism and a bit to Nazism as well. | |||
| He category Holodomor perpetrators from ] despite that the article has sources that he was personally related to the origins of the famine. He removed a notorious Nazi judge from the "See also" section of Czech communist judges , only to add the very same judge to a present-day US Republican prosecutor and Joseph McCarthy articles! He likes to remove all mentions of "repression" in the Soviet Union and "Stalinism": , , , , , , , . A part of this campaign included renaming the category ] in articles despite the fact that his category did not exist, for which {{u|Poeticbent}} notified the user. While "Stalinism" shouldn't be used as an epithet, clearly the user has a problem with it even when it simply refers to Stalin's regime. | |||
| Apparently he went even as far to POV-push that the ] didn't include show trials.. Lastly, he removed propaganda category from East German state political journalist but added it to two anti-communist advocacy groups , . Classic. | |||
| You can go through all of the users edits, there's not much. They just consist of that kind of small POV tweaks and categories, never using talk pages or edit summaries. Is this ] or just business as usual? --]] 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, in looking, on the first edit, "Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia" he '''did''' remove "show trials" with a note explaining that there wasn't any references to back up that claim, and he's right about that. | |||
| I saw no discussion on the talk pages about that particular revert, but did see talk about "show trials" with one user claiming "common knowledge" as a reason to add it in, which , even if it is, doesn't square with Misplaced Pages's insistence on reliable sources, so I'd say that revert is correct. The other removals of "show trials" was pretty much the same thing, with the judges, yeah, it was a dumb move to move a judge into a spot that says he's a current judge, that fails reliability, so while his reverts aren't all vandalistic, some are definitely wrong , but not all are, some are helpful. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's true. But what makes it impossible for me to assume good faith are cases of that kind of dualistic "retaliatory" POV-pushing: so there's this notorious Nazi judge in "See also" of communist regime judges, better remove it and moments later add it to articles about right-wing judges in the US.--]] 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I quickly checked a few their edits. Some are definitely POV and hardly supported by RS. Others amount to vandalism. For example, links an article to a category that does not exist. ] (]) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Got my attention. Here we go. (1) Arch Getty is an ultra-serious, big boy full professor of history at UCLA specializing in the history of the Soviet 1930s . It is absolutely tendentious bullshit to try and pigeonhole him as a historian who "has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin." The OP has already lost me. (2) There is no easy definition of "show trial." Individual mileage may vary. (3) "Holodomor" (Good translation = "Hunger terror") is a pejorative term which has great favor among Ukrainian nationalists who assert that the 1932-33 famine catastrophe was a conscious act of anti-Ukrainian genocide. This thesis is dubious at best unless a million deaths in Kazakhstan and Russia were also conscious acts of anti-Ukrainian genocide (not to mention the abject lack of archival support of the notion to emerge after the fall of the USSR). The use of the tendentious phrase "Holomodor perpetrator" is a good measure of where the OP is coming from. Get the boomerang out... ] (]) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC) <small>Last edit: ] (]) 22:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:] is an existing category and I don't have anything to do with it. The European Parliament, UN General Assembly and OECD among others by the way ]. Perhaps it's just your orthodox pro-Soviet communist POV that reeks here. --]] 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Now that's a nasty thing to call a Social Democrat, oh Fair-And-Balanced one... ] (]) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: (Upon further review, the fact that you can't tell my politics after 55,000 edits, many on Communist-related topics, I am gonna take as a compliment... I know YOUR politics though...) ] (]) 02:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am not sure if any action would be necessary, but just would like to notice the following. (1) ] is indeed s a revisionist (may be even a Stalinist) historian. Giving link (above) to his own web site does not prove anything. Getty is mostly known for claiming that Stalin did not plan ]. See , for example: "One of Getty’s more significant contributions to revisionism was the shifting of blame for the bloody purges from Stalin to Nikolai Yezhov". He sees "Great Terror as the consequence of the USSR’s newfound social mobility and concludes that in such chaotic political flux inadvertent atrocities were bound to be committed.". (2) There is no any controversy what Soviet "show trial" means. (3) "Holodomor" in Russian and Ukrainian is not a pejorative term. "Death by Hunger" is merely a translation, nothing more. There is a scholarly opinion (e.g. by ]) that a million of deaths in Kazakhstan were ''also'' an act of genocide; this does not disprove anything about Holodomor. ] (]) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I suggest you remove your libelous insinuation, for that is exactly what it is. And I know your politics, too. ] (]) 17:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: (Addenda): The irony of you lauding the poet Robert Conquest as a historian and covering your User Page with poetry is not lost on me. Conquest was a Cold War era polemicist and the "revisionist" movement of the 1970s and 1980s (Stephen Cohen, Roberta Manning, Lynne Viola, Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, ad infinitim) is the mainstream academic history of today, for those of you at home trying to follow the game without a scorecard. ] (]) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Territory war 3 pwner and User:SPIKE SPIKE BAD == | |||
| Editor ], who appears to be a young, enthusiastic editor, has been causing problems with their NPP work for a week. I noticed this morning that they "retired" , and I wondered how soon before they were back. The answer turned out to be... 60 seconds. | |||
| Last edit from SPIKE_SPIKE_BAD: | |||
| First edit by new editor User:Territory war 3 pwner: | |||
| ] is editing almost identically to how SSB did: | |||
| *Cryptic edit summaries in reversions, like "WHY" or "WHAT", from SSB: , , , , | |||
| * Same from TW3P: | |||
| * Abusive edit summaries from SSB when reverting vandalism (or perceived vandalism): , , , | |||
| * Same from TW3P: , | |||
| * Completely wrong CSD rationales from SSB: , | |||
| * Same from TW3P: , and an inappropriate db-g3 on ], for which I didn't get a diff, and it's now deleted A7. | |||
| Also note the oddly stilted English used even in the milder edit summaries, and on both editor's talk pages. Now I'm all for fresh starts in life, but this isn't a fresh start, it's the same behaviour using a new account to avoid scrutiny and a possible block: SSB was warned repeatedly about ]ing new users, and about creating unnecessary work for other editors cleaning up the mess, and kept promising to straighten up, and failing to change their behaviour one bit. Also note that a lot of the repeated warnings given to SSB were deleted: see contribs. I asked new editor TW3P if this was a new account from the same person, and the reply was no: . I don't know if this is technically sockpuppetry, so I haven't opened a SPI. But a checkuser would be useful here. Can an admin advise please. on how to handle this? Thanks, ] (]) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's obviously the same editor. For further evidence, incorrect warnings that users can't remove warnings from their talk pages , Distrust of ip users and . At first I appreciated Spike's enthusiasm for NPP and RCP, but in the end I came to see them as a net negative as they refused to get the point, spurned offers from more experienced users to help them out and continued the same mistakes that numerous users had informed them about over and over again. There's no point in someone doing NPP and RCP if they make so many errors that they need to be patrolled themselves and are constantly ] new users. Regardless of how the alternative account use is dealt with, Spike/Territory need to be banned from NPP and RCP for now, as they are doing more harm than good. ] (]) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I looked at Territory war 3 pwner because they edited a blocked sockmaster's talk page. Yes, even though they have denied it on their talk page, they are the same as SPIKE SPIKE BAD. —] (]) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I noticed that Territory war 3 pwner also used swear words in a couple of edit summaries when reverting vandalism. The only other editor I've seen do that is SPIKE SPIKE BAD, and the general aggression combined with very similar error (like the G3 on Block TZ Entertainment, which I saw, was going to change to A7, but someone else had already done it). IMO, they have to be the same user. ] (]) 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth I noticed Territory after he made . Being that it was only his 9th edit and he was already making reversions and seemed to have a working knowledge of Misplaced Pages, I immediately suspected a sock. And I swear to you, I have no reason why, but the first person I thought of was Spike. I had also noticed his "retirement" and I suppose the fact that Territory was just jumping in with vandalism fighting, much the same as Spike had, raised my suspicions. Come to think of it, I always half suspected that Spike was also a sock of an earlier user. He seeemed to know how to do much more than someone brand new to the project would.  <span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;border:1px dotted black">]]</span> 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I also thought that Spike had to have been here before, as they leaped in and started immediately doing reversions and their 11th edit was to report someone at ] , that at a time when their account was supposedly a few hours old. For a genuinely new editor that's unheard of. Also, while the editor is writing in stilted English, the mistakes are inconsistent, sometimes they use more difficult things like articles, modal verbs, conditional structures and past forms correctly, sometimes not. If someone genuinely has problems with English they'll make the same mistakes, so that is more typical of someone who speaks English quite well and is pretending not to. It's the same with their editing: a mix of good and bad edits without consistency. This leads me more towards suspecting deliberate intent i.e. pure trolling rather than simple incompetence. But all this is a moot point, they'ŗe clearly socking and have clearly been given enough warnings to change their behaviour and the same issues are being repeated, so I'm afraid that it's time to say goodbye. ] (]) 08:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. I was reluctant to break ] with Spike and I feel that the same may be true with other editors who encountered him, but I feel he knew/knows exactly what he's doing.  <span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;border:1px dotted black">]]</span> 08:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do also feel it is worth discussing if his behaviour is intentional, as it turns the case from a good-faith editor who may have created a sock in order to continue making what he views as constructive edits to one of an experienced user who is intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages.  <span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;border:1px dotted black">]]</span> 09:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: User:Territory war 3 pwner has now also "retired", , so we'll need to look out for the next sock. This may need to turn into an SPI after all. ] (]) 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a new one emerges, I would support a SPI, because that would be the third (maybe more, if there was some before Spike) account that they're using. ] (]) 12:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He in that last message. —''']''' (]) 14:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Since he's offering taunts like that, it's clear that his sockpuppetry is both intentional and ill-purposed. Is there any reason why we shouldn't open an SPI now? ] (]) 14:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} I've presumptuously created an SPI . ] (]) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Following up''' We all missed DoRD's comment above where he confirmed that these two are the same person. He didn't find any other accounts. ] (]) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for block - IP disrupting a course with students, no rationale given == | |||
| {{tracked|T91416}} | |||
| Hello. I have a group of students in a course. Some IP has said that our course promotes vandalism by posting on the course page and deleting our course page. They give no further explanation. This is a disruptive harassing stalker. Can these IPs please be blocked? | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I am happy to talk with anyone but this disrupts a group of people and this user obviously knows enough to engage on Misplaced Pages, because they know how to disrupt many people at once. I did not notify this user on their userpage per ]. I requested page protection at . ]] 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The 70.121 IP has no edits, and the 72.68 IP has not been active since 27 February. I don't think a block is in order at this time. However, if the problem recurs, then protection (if not already done) or blocks can be undertaken. —''']''' (]) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Is there anyone else that gets their own IP listed on the of the course? Known bug? ] (]) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The answer to that question is yes. I have that exact same issue - Bluerasberry, are you thus sure those aren't your own IPs? Very weird bug. ] ] 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Yeah. My own IP also shows up as well when I saw the page. ] (]) 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Me too. -- ]'''ᚠ'''] 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Me six. I philed a bug on Phabricator. ] (]) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Note that the proper IP in question is {{User-multi|t|c|user=72.68.239.80}}, as found in the database by a developer at phabricator. ] (]) 15:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : It also appears that the course pages cannot be protected. ]] 16:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved userpage == | |||
| {{archivetop|All wrapped up and tossed in the bin.] (]) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can someone take a look at this ], a recently moved userpage. It's a bit beyond my experience as to what to do to it. | |||
| Its a userpage of a sock that was blanked then mvoed to mainspace and then had content added. | |||
| Tempted to restore it to its original version but not totally sure if its a good idea without cleaning it up first. ] (])(]) 21:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Suggest move to ], or restore original userpage <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::original page was another users userpage tagging them as a ] so assuming it needs restoring. Looking to see if its best to move the page back, moving it to draft is just going to lead to a confusing edit history in my opinion. ] (])(]) 21:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::It probably is better to move it back rather than delete it. —''']''' (]) 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>Moved back.</s> Next question. If this is a sockpuppeteeer why are they editing? ] (])(]) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Have tagged the moved page as ] as the page makes no sense, however while paying insufficient attention please see below. | |||
| ::::And someone please slap me. - Misplaced the page when moving ] needs deleting now due to user error. ] (])(]) 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Note: Tagged ] with ]. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, ] tagged with ]. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Pages deleted, I believe we can close this now? <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 22:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == IP hopping edit warrior / block evasion == | |||
| {{archive top|status=closed|result=IP accounts blocked for 24 hours by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 03:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| IP account blocked for 2 weeks | |||
| *{{vandal|67.240.247.8}} | |||
| *{{vandal|66.66.103.144}} | |||
| *{{vandal|96.25.250.141}} | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Murder of Boris Nemtsov}} | |||
| First IP was blocked for edit warring by {{u|Swarm}}. All IPs geolocate to the same city. Edit warring has continued on the latest IP (96.25.250.141) while the first IP is still blocked. Requesting blocks or temporary semi on the page. Thanks, ] <small>]</small> 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{resolved mark}}: blocked 24h by {{u|Antandrus}}. ] <small>]</small> 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Only the last was blocked. The middle IP is hitting up ] as we speak. --] (]) 04:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I went ahead and blocked the other one; it's obviously the same person. Since he did not take me up on my offer to unblock early if he promised to stop edit warring, instead switching to an unblocked IP, I'm withdrawing that offer. Ping me if you need the article protected. ] ] 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == IPv6-hopping "Lee Corso" editor is probably a sneaky vandal, but occasionally sounds sincere == | |||
| {{archive top|status=closed|result=Users blocked for sockpuppetry by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{ipvandal|2601:2:2380:27E:F50F:2654:2F67:D06B}} | |||
| * 20 other IPs in the same /64 block -- I suggest installing the IP range widget for Special:Contributions, and searching for 2601:2:2380:27E:* | |||
| * {{vandal|Corsiobuttylykl}} | |||
| * {{vandal|3oi343oi4o34}} | |||
| * Example article: ] | |||
| This IPv6 user is making a pattern of edits that largely involve either changing sentences to be about sports broadcaster Lee Corso, or changing temperatures to be colder. I've blocked the IPs for 72 hours so far and disabled account creation, but this still needs more follow-up. Today while scanning through the changes I found a case where later edits had been reverted ''to'' this user's preferred temperatures, for example, and made sure to specifically undo it. I doubt that's the last case. | |||
| The Lee Corso thing is clearly just vandalism, but some of the user's recent changes to temperatures include edit summaries that make them sound sincere, as if the user firmly believes that Misplaced Pages is actually reporting temperatures incorrectly. This makes it possibly slightly different from vandalism. I'm temporarily assuming good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, so I left a message on ] (great name, I know, but that's the least of the issues here). | |||
| There definitely is a problem here. I'm hoping to get an explanation from the user on why they think the temperatures they're changing are wrong, although I'm expecting the answer is likely that they're screwing with Misplaced Pages and hoping to get away with it. But I'm leaving the Corsiobuttylykl account unblocked for a bit because I asked kindly for a response. | |||
| I don't have the time to follow up on this alone, though. | |||
| Keep in mind that if you're looking for user contributions or if you're about to place a block, you should make sure it applies to the entire /64 block, 2601:2:2380:27E::/64. The user appears to be on the kind of IPv6 setup where changing the last 64 bits of your address is easy. ] (]) 05:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Rspeer}} Please see ]. Cheers —] (]) 13:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, that address belongs to Comcast, and they typically issue a /64 to each of their IPv6 customers. The range contributions can be seen if you have the range contributions gadget enabled. —] (]) 13:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Regarding the "least of issues" aside above, the user's name is, phonetically, "Corso butty-lick", thereby in ]. The name will have to be changed or blocked.] 18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Corso was just blocked indefinitely for other reasons (being a sock-puppet), so this can be closed.] 22:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == 2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates == | |||
| The ] is ] to the ], and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role. | |||
| Interested parties are invited to review the ] containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to {{NoSpamEmail|arbcom-en-c|lists.wikimedia.org}}. | |||
| Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments. | |||
| The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| == Attacks on Krimuk90 == | |||
| {{archivetop|Dealt with by Euryalus. ] (]) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an administrator please note the made to {{u|Krimuk90}} and and block them.♦ ] 09:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} I'm not sure what a "chootiya" is, but the edit summaries in general indeed suggest a violation of ] nonetheless. BTW, {{u|Dr. Blofeld}}, the IP wasn't notified of this discussion, so . '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 10:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not confirmed as a fixed IP and they appear to have stopped editing, so I haven't blocked at this stage. If it resumes please let me know. In the mean time have rev-deleted the insults and oversighted the BLP violation. -- ] (]) 10:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, {{u|Krimuk90}} can you alert Euyalus if he continues in the future?♦ ] 10:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup, thank you both very much. :) --] ] 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Vandalism at ] == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box2 | |||
| | title = | |||
| | title_bg = #999 | |||
| | title_fnt = #FFF | |||
| | quote = Semi-protected by CBW. --] 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | width = 30%|halign=left}} | |||
| :''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Would an admin please protect this page against persistent vandalism? I posted at ], but no-one seems to be active there. ]] (]) 10:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Article now semi-protected for a period of 1 week by ] over at ]. --] (]) 15:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''The discussion above is closed. <span style="color: #F00;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div><br style="clear:both;" /> | |||
| == Vandalism on The Amazing Race U.S. articles == | |||
| {{atop|Nothing since last warning. ] (])(]) 19:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| This IP editor ({{user|68.172.212.105}}) vandalizes every season of the original American ''Amazing Race'' with continuous unnecessary addition of span codes, I had reverted to restore them all and can any admin to report that user? ] <sup>]</sup> 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is really vandalism. I don't particularly see the point in it, but I'm sure they are acting in good faith.  <span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;border:1px dotted black">]]</span> 11:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, have you tried asking them why they are doing this? Maybe they have a good reason. I see no discussion on their talk page (you should also notify them on their talk page that they have been brought up here at ANI).  <span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;border:1px dotted black">]]</span> 11:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Just {{diff2|649994140|notified}} the editor. The user's {{diff2|649797132|most recent edit}} was at 04:59 on 4 March 2015, so it looks like they've stopped. ] (]) 14:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| {{archive top|status=closed|result=Edit at ] reverted by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 03:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is legit? even for a show that has historical significance because of its connection with ] and even though it didn't even last a season, are we ''really'' allowed to link to full episodes on YouTube? ] (]) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Per ], since this YouTube video is published by an unreliable source, the link can be removed. ] (]) 14:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you do it. It's better if someone with authority does it. I have no desire to become a target as i have no authority or power. ] (]) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — ] ] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It isn't even a matter of it being an unreliable source. The video on YouTube is a copyright violation, and we must not link to such items. I've already taken care of this issue as Paul Austin left a note on my talk page. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 17:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :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? | |||
| == Editorous is on a crusade == | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive top|result=...by ]. ''']''' 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)|status=Blocked}} | |||
| ] is attempting to push a POV on ] about why and how it is so flawed. A block is in order. Also . ''']''' 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Continuing both logged in and . Crusade is right. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, that appears to be a problem, including violations of neutral point of view per ], verifiability and reliable sources per ] and ]. Be careful you don't get blocked for edit-warring, even if you are correct. ] (]) 19:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't intend to revert any more but your advice is good. Others can sort it out. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editor is blocked (thanks {{u|Barek}}) and thanks {{u|CombatWombat42}} for removing stuff like, "In fact it is so bad that MSPB has no attorneys in its pro bono program...and it's been this way for years! For documentation of these facts, statements and statistics see www.mspb.gov or contact your congressman or congresswoman." from the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Mukherjee007 repeatedly removing Speedy Deletion tags == | |||
| {{atop|Article deleted.] (])(]) 19:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Regarding ], the SPA article-creator, ] (],]) has repeatedly removed deletion notice tags (despite warnings on his TP not to), at least five times at last count.,,,,.] 18:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Given them final warning as they dont appear to have been sufficiently warned. If they do it again ] should solve this quickly. ] (])(]) 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==TPA for 83.106.86.95== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{atop|Done |
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | ||
| {{userlinks|83.106.86.95}} | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Can we block for disrupition only and nuke recent contributions please. ] (])(]) 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Can you please help? == | |||
| ==Reporting additional personal attacks by KazekageTR== | |||
| ] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|KazekageTR}} has earlier appeared on my talk page after i listed him as a suspect in ], calling me a ]. This was a clear violation of ] as per section one of ]. I subsequently ] on this noticebord, which resulted in KazekageTR being ] on his talk page by {{User|User:SarekOfVulcan}}, with the message that further attacks would result in a ]. Now KazekageTR has reappeared on my talk page, erronously accusing me to Pro-] bias. This is a mild violation of section two (]) of ]. On the ], he has also ] to ] be to find evidence that i'm a ]. This is a violation of section one (wikihounding) and two (threats) of ], and a violation of section six (threats) of WP:WIAPA. More seriously, he has compared me to a "] operative" on the ongoing SPI. This is a clear violation of section four (]) of WP:WIAPA. ] (]) 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :While a couple of KazekageTR's comments are a bit beyond the pale, I have to say, that's the most random collection of users I've ever seen in an SPI. Are you sure your ] on this filing? --] 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly. | |||
| :You are trying to justify your wrongful move. You are not 'in the process of removing a number of suspects' you are just doing whatever you like and accuse people without proof. Also ] applies to you too, you know? You are accusing me without any solid evidence(only some 'look alike edits with the other sock puppets') and if you keep this up, that ] thing could turn the tide towards you. IF you keep accusing me without some good evidence to back up your claim, i will fill a form against you cause i am really tired of your nonsense 'witch hunting' and consider it as ]. <span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: New Times Roman;">]</span> 20:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? – ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|KazekageTR|SarekOfVulcan}} I have KazekageTR (and others) as suspected socks of Tirgil34, despite KazekageTR's accusation that i'm not "not in the process of removing a number of suspects." ]? For those interested, i have explained why KazekageTR was initially added as sock ]. ] (]) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works. | |||
| I'm no expert in SPI but that list is pretty incredible. Many of those listed haven't edited since 2014 so, from my understanding, any CU would be stale anyway (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken). Much of the rationale does look to be somewhat flimsy; the filing doesn't look to be well thought out. I'd say remove all the accounts that haven't edited in 6 months or so and those that have been linked as socks to other accounts. ] (]) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== POVPushingTheTruth == | ||
| {{atop| |
{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | ||
| ] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to kindly request a little admin attention at ]. There is currently a backlog of several dozen reports. Thank you. ] (]) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == 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. | |||
| This article and a related controversy page have recently been brought to BLPN several times by Collect and myself. In the I suggested it was more appropriate for ANI at this time. | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| There seems to be a lot of personal attacks, trolling, assumptions of bad faith, combative editing and ] that have created a toxic and un-productive environment on the article. For example, {{ping|Hipocrite}} and {{ping|Nomoskedasticity}} have both been borderline trolling me, by sarcastically saying their edits are for auction, that they can be paid to leave any article alone, and in Hipocrite's case asking if I was paid to defame him. the same two editors accuse me of spinning the article by intentionally omitting major controversies, but refuse to provide any sources regarding the alleged omissions and in other cases have accused me of being unethical, spinning the article and so on. | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| I don't feel this assumption of bad-faith is warranted, especially since I provided sources to verify beyond a doubt that the MBA controversy belongs on the page, pro-actively suggested adding COI concerns with her father and a debate about her tax inversion strategy. Additionally, they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits or edits supported by consensus (see {{ping|Jimbo}}'s comments ), using very bureaucratic, technical rationales, like requiring consensus be established on the Talk page of the article, rather than noticeboards or Talk pages, or saying consensus is not clear enough. | |||
| #* 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:''' | |||
| Not doing the whole self-righteous charade of demanding blocks - just think it needs attention from editors experienced in handling this kind of drama. | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| <b>Disclosure: Please note I have a disclosed COI</b>. ] (]) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's see this ANI post for what it is: a paid editor is trying (at his client's behest) to make this BLP a more promotional piece and then complaining here when other editors don't agree that this is what should happen. ] (]) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hipocrite and Nomoskedasticity by ]. These are also the type of comments that when an editor seeks help on an ANI board to deal with issues, that cause them to lose faith on Misplaced Pages and eventually quit. The sniping, specifically the comments about others and having been paid by someone to defame another is nearing harassment. Also Corporate, can you link us to where the consensus was at BLPN? I see some discussions but not like a full on consensus of the content. ] (]) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Tutelary}}Within are links to the BLPN post, two user Talk pages and an IRC respondent (no link for that last one obviously, but that was {{ping|DragonflySixtyseven}} who made the edit after picking up on the IRC chat) that all agreed the prior controversy section was UNDUE (it was pretty obvious). Though there wasn't explicit consensus for exactly how to handle it (trim and merge or summary style), but it's this kind of editing that concerns me; where the two editors edit boldly, but then require an impossibly high margin of iron-clad consensus for anyone else to make changes and often find trivial or unsubstantiated reasons to reject edits from others. | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| :::It's worth noting that {{ping|Jehochman}}'s warning was given <i>after</i> these edits, however it appears as though this may be representative of their editing conduct in general or at least in other COI situations and part of a long string of disputes between these two and Collect. ] (]) 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed. | |||
| :::: I have very much seen this type of editing before and it's even being stated within this thread that Hipocrite likes to argue while sniping comments at people. The comments about how you're apparently being paid to cast aspersions against him are not convincing and are starting to inhibit the ability to discuss this matter at ANI--which is a frequent problem here I might add. Also particularly because this is a BLP, they are afforded much large protection via the larger ] policy, the bar might be higher for sourcing. But regarding their editing habits in general, if their comments on ANI are any representation of how they argue on the talk page (without even looking at it), then they need to be barred from this topic. ] (]) 01:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments. | |||
| :::: Again, you have stated that I edited boldly against consensus. Please show me where I did such on the page. Use diffs. I'll be sending Mylan a bill for my time, by the way. ] (]) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hipocrite is correct in that I referred to both of them collectively as if they were a single person, but some very specific comments may refer to just one or the other. ] (]) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: So really you have no comment about me except that I don't like you whitewashing your clients? Which of what you wrote applies to me, specifically? This comment cost Mylan $50. ] (]) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Someone is being paid to take me to ANI? No thanks. ] (]) 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Still further "they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits?" Where have I done so? This paid aspersion casting needs to stop. ] (]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Hipocrite, I thought you had better manners than that. ] (]) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Hipocrite, you aren't convincing anybdoy with this sort of argument. Please stop. Companies, like it or not, have an interest in seeing that their articles and their related biographies are accurate. We can't just blow them off when our articles have an impact on their real lives of people who work at these businesses. Please be patient and listen to whatever concerns are presented, and don't be disrespectful or dismissive. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Companies do NOT have an interest that their articles are "accurate". They have an interest that content about them shows them in a good light. Nobody gets a bonus or dividend payment because their Misplaced Pages article is "accurate". -- ] 17:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::* You know what, fuck it. I'll avoid all Mylan related topics from here-on-out. Enjoy Pepsipedia, brought to you by IBM. ] (]) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have never attempted to position her government lobbying as director of government relations as a philanthropic effort. On the contrary, I have provided excerpts from the source material to assist in making it more clear how the legislation benefits Mylan. I did mention on {{ping|Drmies}} Talk page that editing patterns suggest the two editors may be colluding offline, but immediately struck-out the comment as unsubstantiated. Mylan does not know there is a discussion at ANI or that these two editors are giving me a hard time; my edits are my own. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::I have not actually requested a ban, but suggested diplomatic intervention was needed. Someone would have to do a deeper dive into their editing to see if a BAN was needed, but off-the-cuff an IBAN with all disclosed <s>COIs</s> <b>paid editors</b> (the behavioral problems seems to be exclusive to paid editing at least for Hipocrite) seems worth considering. Again, someone would have to investigate their behavior in a broader sense than just this one article for that kind of thing. ] (]) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| :::::As much as I dislike agreeing with a corporate ''anything'', let alone a minion, I see no need to censure (or bitch at) CorpM here, who I believe has been going about this the proper way. The current version of the article isn't bad--I suppose , added by Nomoskedasticity is fine, but I don't rightly see why had to be removed. Either way, that's fussing over content, but getting all Pepsipedia over it is exaggerated and shows a tremendous lack of good faith. I mean, I suppose such lack of good faith with a COI editor is understandable, maybe, but it doesn't help us and our article. If Hipocrite stays away from this, that would be a good thing, if only to bring the temperature down. ] (]) 19:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.'' | |||
| ::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources == | |||
| * Sigh... I'd hoped this would slide past unnoticed, but now that you're standing on the mine, you're going to have to defuse it. I strongly sympathize with Hipocrite's position, in that I think CorporateM's proposed text, understandably enough, was meant to go just deep enough to make his client look good without really putting a full understanding of the circumstances as a priority - as I explained there, I think it tended to make activities sound altruistic that, though quite possibly of substantial benefit, ultimately served commercial ends. Unfortunately, I also have to recognize CorporateM's complaint about edits for auction. Taken in full, I think any reasonable person can see that Hipocrite is speaking rhetorically in the middle when he says ''"I think that all goes out the window when you could literally burn $100,000 with no life impact. You should rename this Cokeapedia, brought to you by Apple. So, no, it's not ethical for a billion dollar corporation to do anything more than say "please look at this article" once. Of course, if they were paying me, I'd think differently. I'll leave this topic area for $1,000, and argue whatever the subject wants for $5,000. Contact me via email this user for Bitcoin details! Wait, is that ethical? I'm so confused where the line is drawn. "'' Yet in cases like with ]'s alleged daughter, we've seen claims of "]" in the U.S. taken to ridiculous extremes, even against people who simply promised to tell the truth to the press. So I think that ANI may be obligated to think this one over very carefully, even put it to wider community/WMF consultation and write up a policy, in order to determine the best way to deal with an offer to be paid not to edit, and possibly take a hard line here that may involve topic-banning him from the article, despite his positive contributions. I don't desire anything bad to happen to Hipocrite, but the point is, now that process has been invoked, Misplaced Pages has to convince the public at large that there is no possible way that anyone can really threaten to slant your Misplaced Pages article against you unless he's paid off and get away with it; otherwise I fear that people in his position might actually be in some kind of legal risk, which would be much worse. ] (]) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, | |||
| == Personal attacks alleged == | |||
| ::''(Retitled to "Personal attacks alleged" from non-neutral "Personal attacks by QuackGuru". See ]. --]]] 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC))'' | |||
| QuackGuru has engaged in personal attacks. In violation of AGF and misrepresenting me and my edits. Contrary to warning he continues to post links to a closed WP:AN/I section that was closed no consensus in an effort to discredit me. The attacks are not on point, but personal, not directed to the topic, but me. This has no place on the talk pages of WP articles. | |||
| *His latest including a link to the closed WP:AN/I section in the edits comments.<strike> </strike> | |||
| *Previous linking of the section closed WP:AN/I in edit comments. | |||
| *He even uses a user page to hold the information so he can easily paste it. | |||
| *He has placed the link in comments on an admin's user page, and the edit is a pure attack. | |||
| *He has placed the link in the comments and the attack on a request for page protection that I made. | |||
| This has to stop, There are serious violations of ] including misrepresenting, AGF, and making the discussion on the other editor and not the topic and ] for the persistently trying to discredit me over old and resolved WP:AN/I sections. Asking him to stop has done no good. Smearing another editor should not be done. ] 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted." But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted. The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? ] (]) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" | |||
| ::I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry ] (] · ] · ]) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. ] 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *This comment "" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban ] would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for ? ] (] · ] · ]) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. ] 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Can someone please point out the personal attack? I do not immediately see the insult being directed. I think we are nearing 150 days of daily edit warring at this article so I recognize the tension. ]] 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd agree BR, I don't see ] here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including ], ] and ]. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. ] (]) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at ] where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. ] (]) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined ] it is ] and the two are very close. ] 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *], it would be better to please keep ] on your own computer, not Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Otherwise, I don't see harassment here, and certainly not personal attacks. I agree with ] there's nothing for admins to do. ] | ] 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::{{u|Bishonen}} So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? ] 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bringing up what you have stated before is not a smear. Possibly a topic ban of ] would improve things. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I do think you may be right, that at least a temporary (perhaps 3 month) TBAN from electronic cigarette articles would be good for AlbinoFerret's equilibrium. This is an issue where advocates are running well ahead of the evidence, and this is necessarily a source of friction and controversy. The Misplaced Pages articles are a classic case of ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly ( conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a ] right now.] (]) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not a ], I edit other pages and have other interests. ] 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Doc James, The whole other section was a smear campaign, started by you. All based on content disputes. Had it resulted in a finding against me, perhaps it could be used here. But it didnt, and talk pages of articles are not the place to try and bring up dirt on another editor. ] 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Some of what Albino says is valid, in that this is the proper forum for bringing the list of diffs - not article Talk pages or admin Talk pages. Deploying the list in that way is harassment-y and I think QG should be warned to address behavior issues in appropriate venues going forward. However I don't agree with anything else Albino has written. (particularly his claim that it was not valid ; we all know that many ANIs lose focus and become sprawling, uncloseable messes, as that one did. There was plenty of solid feedback on Albino's behavior in that ANI, however, and linking to it is OK.) ] (]) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns: | |||
| * it appears that {{u|QuackGuru}} has not taken down the page tracking Albino's behavior yet, despite being advised to do so by an admin, which is not good. QG, it is fine to build such a list but you have to deploy it and then get rid of it. You may have not been ready to use it but your hand is forced now. So - either just delete it, or post it here with a request for admin or community action against Albino, and then delete it. But either way, it should go. ] (]) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''1. Misapplication of Policy''': | |||
| ], I put for now. Is this or do you still prefer I blank the page. I'm not done with it. This will go to arbcom if admins don't do anything soon. ] (]) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Quackguru}} see ] - it is OK to compile a list of behaviors in your userspace but you must use it timely. That is why i said that your hand has been forced, and you have to use it and lose it, or just lose it. It seems like you have enough there to request the community to topic-ban, and this is the place to do that. The last one could have potentially succeeded but it was lost in that totally sprawling ANI. But i will get out of the way and let bish answer. ] (]) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Quackguru}}, for you to blank it yourself would be an acceptable compromise, from where I stand, between the hat and putting a speedy tag on it. Blanking isn't a problem, is it? The material would still be at your fingertips via the history. ] | ] 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::A short time ago I did . ] (]) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ]. | |||
| ===Proposed Block for QuackGuru=== | |||
| QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a ] that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed a indefinite block or alternately a one year block. He has engaged in harassment ] again. His actions to remove some of the harassment dont go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. ] 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :User:AlbinoFerret proposed the same thing before and that went nowhere fast. See ]. A return ] will resolve the issue at hand. ] (]) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''': | |||
| ===Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret=== | |||
| User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See ] for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a . He eventually tried to delete some of the text. AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources. AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. ] is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a ]. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See ] for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. ] (]) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Those were edits in a content dispute. Some of them over 2 months old. This is not about content, but your actions on talk pages. ] 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is also about you deleting relevant content you find offensive. AlbinoFerret has a repeated pattern of trying to delete pertinent information about safety. AlbinoFerret is unable to formulate a logical reason for excluding the text. ] (]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a misstatement. There are valid reasons why the content was removed all covered under talk page sections.. But this isnt a content dispute, this is a discussion of harassment that happened because you decided to smear me on talk pages. As for ], I think you have done enough with building over 19000 character in edits , not discussing any of it on the talk pages, and then adding it, and reverting it back in. On such a contentious article, that should never have happened ] In fact looking at the pages history, you are still planning more because of recient additions, but none of them have been brought to the talk page. ] 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Albino you are digging your hole deeper by making spurious complaints. per the userpage guideline ] it is totally fine to draft article content in userspace. ] (]) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Its not spurious, but the basis of WP, Consensus. But there is no consensus in building 19000 character edits in private, and making one 16k edit at once. There was no discussion on the addition, no post on the talk pages directing the other editors to it to look over. This has been done before on the main e-cig page. Granted there is nothing wrong with building edits on a sandbox, but a edit that is 1/3rd the size of the page should have been discussed. ] ] 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} QG, you should request some specific action that you would like the community to take - make a proposal and let folks react. You have been around long enough to know that just saying "something must be done" (passive voice) will get you no where fast. ] (]) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think an is most appropriate rather than a '''short-term topic ban'''. It is clear that ] is ] to improve the e-cig pages. ] (]) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really, and what evidence exactly do you present in support of that? Other than the fact that you have disagreements with AF over content which is neither here nor there, I can't see that you've stated any whatsoever.] (]) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page. | |||
| *'''support indef topic ban''' AlbinoFerret is ] and is ]. And this has been going on for a long time. And I see no reason to believe it will improve. Many chances have been given and few have been taken. It's time for this to stop. ] (]) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I would support a one year topic ban. Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Doc James. ] (]) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' one year topic ban for Albinoferret. There are many issues here and AF is disrupting any genuine attempts to improve the articles, so much that it is bordering on ]. AF has previously done good work on other articles and I believe AF's and everyone else's time could be spent much better. -- ] ] (]) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is nothing more than a content dispute. With diff's gathered over months showing a content dispute. All of which have talk page sections dealing with the content . The only thing this will accomplish is silence a active editor from the article that disagrees with some content, that press releases should not be used for medical content or problems with the sources. In fact one post above me, Doc James, lists a reason for banning me is that "Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial.". ] 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Albino "the evidence" that Doc James is referring to, is medical evidence about risks of e-cigs. I know that a huge focus of yours, has been reducing the amount of ] in the article... but what is, in fact, statements about the unfolding medical consensus on risks. What he meant is that when the science is more solid and the scientific debate settles, there will be less controversy, and that in a year you should have even weaker grounds on which to be disruptive. ] (]) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is speculation. From the Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" source, the topic of the section you linked to "No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production". Unfolding evidence? More like a lot of opinions to me, not based on anything, and the lone "review" of its kind. Because apparently it didnt review any studies as it says none exist. Its given its own section? Huge ] issue here. Being the only source of its kind, what it reviewed is, basically nothing. This is a perfect example of a content dispute, and diffs 157-161 in QuackGurus post above, which are about three months old. ]13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would say that ''the fact that you wrote the above'', is a perfect example of your persistence in objecting, repeatedly and over a long period of time, to the inclusion of reasonable and well sourced content about health risks being added to the articles, by editors who are very experienced in dealing with health matters in WP. That you bring this up ''again'', even here and now, is exactly why I support the topic ban. You know, I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a diff for this, but didn't you write somewhere that you care about this so much because your wife really needed to quit smoking and tried and tried and couldn't, and it was e-cigs that finally helped her do it? If I have that wrong, I apologize. ] (]) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would say to that, that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But consensus is how WP is edited. Others have reasons to include this in the article, where it has stayed for the last three months or so. That does not mean I dont think its a ] issue. It means that its included even though I think it has a weight issue. What you dont have is actions pointing to advocacy. You have a difference of opinion on content. ] 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think DocJames can likely speak for himself but anyway Jytdog, the "unfolding medical consensus" is basically that the short term risks are pretty low and that the long term risks should theoretically also be low. The only "speculation" is exactly how low the long-term risks are. If you are saying that in a years time it will be proven that e-cigarettes are more harmful, well that is just basically crystal-ball stuff. We shouldn't really be discussing content here, but since it seems to be being used as evidence so it seems somewhat necessary. Just demonstrates that this is a content dispute really.] (]) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::nope you are missing the point; this ''is'' about Albino's behavior. i won't belabor this. ] (]) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' in my view to topic ban AlbinoFerret (which I supported) would have succeeded, except it turned into a sprawling mess and was closed out of hopelessness. This one is squarely focused. AlbinoFerret is a ] who wages an ] campaign favorable to e-cigs, and has been relentless in opposing the addition of well-sourced content about health risks. That pattern is clear from difs above and in the prior ANI. I do not intend this to be cruel, but he is housebound and edits WP to keep himself sane (which I am ''very'' sympathetic toward) but still, ] - and especially not when, combined with advocacy, his editing is disruptive. ( directly before.) He is the paradigm of disruptive advocacy on this article. ''WP is vast - let Albino edit elsewhere and not disrupt this topic any more.'' ] (]) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I am far from a SPA, I am a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup and also edit Bitcoin. As for ], sane as in keeping active, you can only watch so many daytime talk shows or soap operas. ] 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban per Jytdog. I don't have a strong opinion about the duration, but a year seems about right. ] | ] 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is e-cigarette articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning AF would help. Yes it would help, it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with AF for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that AF has raised some genuine issues here, did in fact originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page with QG going about things in a covert way and dumping 20k edits into articles without so much as notification. QG attacked AF on the article page which according to ] is not allowed. For this to be turned back round on AF is very harsh and unjust I think. It also seems to be almost entirely without substance.] (]) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Considering that 57% of your edits (257/450 - with '''''<u>233</u>''''' to ]???) are to articles or talk pages about electronic cigarettes, it seems not impossible that you are a SPA as well, perhaps one with a COI. ] (]) 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since when is a roughly 50/50 (haven't been bothered to check the exact amount) split between e-cig and other articles considered a single purpose account? What about editors that edit medical articles far more than I actually edit e-cig articles? Or is that perfectly OK I take it? Your COI accusation is spurious, groundless and you have no right to make it. Helps deflect some attention and blame though I suppose.] (]) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So, you don't think that 57% of your edits going to '''''one very specific subject''''' – electronic cigarettes – and 43% going to a variety of other topics is an pretty good indication that you're here primarily to edit about that one subject? I would beg to differ, I think it's a '''''damn''''' good marker. It's not like your 57% is going to some broad area, like military history, or New York City or films, it's going to '''''electronic cigarettes'''''.<p>Like Bishonen, whose comment is just below this, I don't believe that '''''any''''' of my edits has been to articles on that subject (but I could be wrong, with over 150,000 edits you do lose track of a few in the course of almost 10 years), but I know '''''advocacy''''' when I see it ... and I've got pretty good radar for SPAs and socks as well. 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've already told you what I think so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not sure what you having made 150,000 edits and being on Misplaced Pages for 10 years has got to do with anything either.] (]) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You "think" almost everyone who has supported the topic ban is involved in the content dispute? Please don't hazard tendentious guesses about things that could be checked with a little research. Here, I'll help you with one item: I for my part have barely heard of e-cigarettes. I'm supporting the topic ban because I can recognize ], at least when it's as obvious as this. ] | ] 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::::I did not do an in depth analysis before I posted of course, nor can you reasonably expect me to before every post. But I do know that of the posters above QuackGuru (the proposer of the ban) and Doc James are highly involved and Cloudjpk, CFCF and Jytdog have all contributed to e-cig articles and have tended to be on the opposing side of the content dispute to Albino Ferret.] (]) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, actually, we '''''can''''' expect you to do some due diligence before you make claims about other editors' motivations. ] (]) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The editors who want AF banned mostly seem to be involved in a content dispute with him, and some of them look to be pushing their own point of view pretty hard. I had a look at everyone's block logs and QuackGuru seems to be a serious problem editor. Instead of being turned into a witch hunt against AF I think this should return to the question of what needs to be done about QuackGuru and those who support him.--] (]) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **@InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Misplaced Pages experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article '''''you''''' have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is ''']''', that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being ''']''' -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, '''''you''''' are uninvolved, '''''you''''' are totally neutral, and '''''your''''' vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. ] (]) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***@BMK: ] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ****Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure '''''essay''''' from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride '''''what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!!''''' ] (]) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****I didn't cite anything. I idly wondered if there was a WP:DICK, because you're being one, and ]? Now maybe you could stop with the childish sneering and personal attacks, and try saying something constructive.--] (]) 12:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. ] (]) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *******], InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See ]. ] (]) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''': | |||
| *'''Support''' Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. ] (]) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - '''Send to ArbCom''' - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by conduct issues (]) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest editors at a noticeboard establish consensus. ] (]) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (Disclosure: AF has supported sanctions against me in another ongoing RFc. But I have supported a topic ban for AF on this topic on several previous occassions). The problem here is that many of the editors on this article are here to advocate for electronic cigarettes rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. I think AF is basically a good guy, but it is not healthy for the encyclopedia to have editors who spend 8 or more hours a day focused on making sure that a single article projects a specific POV. I'll add that I would support a similar topic ban for any editor for whom edits to electronic cigarette articles comprise more than 60% of their total edits over the last 3 months. Its not personal, its just that this article has attracted too many editors who are there to promote a specific POV. ] (]) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per the reasons stated by {{U|Levelledout}}. This is part content dispute and part piling on by those with a particular POV. -- <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> 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Not involved in the articles themselves or the content dispute aside from commenting on a few posts brought to ]. I wouldn't suggest any longer than a year for a ban though as it's generally better to give people a chance. The idea that this is just a content dispute so the behavior issues should be ignored is extremely disingenuous. There are also involved editors here who oppose the ban on grounds of it being a "content dispute", but behavior problems are behavior problems whether there is a content dispute or not. It's apparent there is a problem here with AF considering how much they focus on the topic. One could argue whether they fit the criteria of an ] or not with brief edits in a couple other articles, but there is definitely advocacy apparent here. Uninvolved editors here are seeing that problem, so I'd highly suggest weighing that when determining community consensus. I do agree with Robert McClenon that the topic will probably need to be considered at ArbCom at some point, but this is one user that keeps coming up and seems like it could be handled here. ] (]) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.] | |||
| ==Disruption on an AfD?== | |||
| {{archive top|AFD has been closed as '''redirect''' by ], with our thanks. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 05:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC) }} | |||
| '''Evidence''': | |||
| Under normal circumstances are nominators allowed to relist deletion debates? {{u|Antigng}} has so for relisted twice ], an article the editor had nominated for deletion. - ] (]) 03:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : ] says "Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions." --] (]) 03:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's what I thought, something had seemed off. Usually when an editor does a relisting that I have seen they are uninvolved. - ] (]) 03:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::] are not forbidden, so I don't see any problem with a non-admin <u>relisting</u>, ''per se''. No, the real problem here is the that re-lister is '''''involved''''', since they are the nominator. It seems to me that the re-lister should ideally be '''''uninvolved''''', whether an admin or a non-admin. ] (]) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The consensus is clearly to redirect, so I'd close it myself, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do it. ] (]) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == User Editor605 is NOTHERE, long term abuse == | |||
| {{archivetop|1=User indeffed by {{u|The Blade of the Northern Lights}}. {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 09:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Reporting {{user links|Editor605}} as ]. Since May 2013, this user has been slowly vandalizing cartoon-related articles. They have amassed 13 templated warnings on their talk page plus a few more non-templated warnings. This user inserts unsourced info, hoax info, and general vandalizes. I am requesting this user be sitebanned as NOTHERE and long term abuse. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, this has gone on for quite long enough. Blocked and image uploads nuked. ] (]) 06:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}: I'm not surprised. This editor has been skirting scrutiny for quite some time. They rarely engage in discussion, and they have little grasp of community standards. Not sure formal "sitebanning" is the way to go. When I tried that with other disruptive users in the past, the sentiment was that indeffing was good enough, and that the user's edits could still be reverted on sight per ] if other socks were discovered, for indeffed users are ''de facto'' banned. No sense giving the kid a bragging token. ] (]) 06:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} Thank you. | |||
| ::{{re|Cyphoidbomb}} Sorry, yeah. I get my terms confused sometimes. Meant "block" not "ban". And that's what TBotNL did. Thanks for dealing with this user in the past. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action''': | |||
| == Top Hat Trading Limited recreated again == | |||
| {{archive top|1=Article name salted by {{u|FreeRangeFrog}}. -- ] (]) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| The user continues to recreate the article {{la|Top Hat Trading Limited}}. The user has claimed to have added additional material to resolve the issues in the AfD (which, admittedly, had minimal participation) - but all they have actually added since the version that was deleted via the AfD is a single press release that is hosted at digitaljournal.com. All the other sources are identical. | |||
| 1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification. | |||
| The user seems to believe that they fixed the issue because they have now provided "The complete information of magazine articles was added, included correct publish date and publisher's of articles.", however, as can be viewed in the version deleted at the time of the AfD, the references are identical. | |||
| 2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page. | |||
| I have no problem with the user trying to go through ] or converting the article to a draft to be improved (if they can be made to understand that simply adding a press release isn't really an improvement). But I think it's a bad idea for me to address them directly right now as I'm both tired (getting late here) and frustrated enough from my prior interaction of not getting through to the user. So, I would prefer to leave it to someone else to try to communicate with them this time. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 06:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Which user? --] (]) 06:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, that would help. The user involved is {{user|Johnf1982}}. I had a short discussions on the now deleted talk page of the article a couple days ago, but I couldn't seem to make progress explaining the issues (or they were refusing to hear them). Perhaps someone else can better explain how they can best proceed. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 06:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration. | |||
| :: I was review and editing the article, and I press the save page button but it was not intentional. Sorry for that, I don't will edit article in future... Thanks! ] (]) 06:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows. | |||
| ==Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.== | |||
| Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed. | |||
| {{user6|Wtshymanski}} is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a in 2012. | |||
| ----Best Regards | |||
| --- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert ''any and all'' edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are ] edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those ''from the past three weeks''. | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Nothing to say about me really bot == | |||
| '''17th Feb''' | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}} | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be. | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| '''18th Feb''' | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| 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. | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| :This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "''light emitting'' diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example). | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| '''25th Feb''' | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| :The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it ''as he is perfectly entitled to do''. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The ] procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.) | |||
| :"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. | |||
| '''25th Feb''' | |||
| :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) | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| :(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ] ] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| ::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the ] policy to be a ] edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two. | |||
| :::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed). | |||
| :::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''2nd Mar''' | |||
| ::::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: | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :Again a potentially ] edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, {{u|Andy Dingley}} independently made the same point on . Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it. | |||
| ::::and many more | |||
| ::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is known that Misplaced Pages is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is ''not'' the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty. | |||
| :::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions . This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. ] (]) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Totally agree with {{u|DieSwartzPunkt}} The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:00, 5 March 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) | |||
| ::::::::::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) | |||
| :::18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called. | |||
| :::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – ''] ] ]'' 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What ''administrator action'' is desired here though? | |||
| : Once upon a time we had ] and ]. Neither of them were likely to be effective (] wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters. | |||
| : WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. ] (]) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not proven''' The accusation is: | |||
| :: ''"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches."'' (typo and punctuation corrected) | |||
| : and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation: | |||
| :: ''"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert ''any and all'' edits made by IP address editors."'' (emphasis was in the original) | |||
| : But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries. | |||
| : Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that ''were'' wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. ] (]) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."'' | |||
| :: So because he didn't get ''all'' of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted? | |||
| :: This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) ''he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism'', and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. ] (]) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ''"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits."'' That's odd, because that's ''exactly'' what <strike>you</strike> DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then <strike>you</strike> DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then ''every'' one of <strike>your</strike> DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. ] (]) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted ''any'' diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. ] (]) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. ] (]) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. ''But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it.'' There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). ] (]) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously? | |||
| ::::: So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One. | |||
| ::::: The first diff above is from ]. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise): | |||
| :::::: IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: IP wikilinked ]. W. did not revert. | |||
| :::::: IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski. | |||
| :::::: IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find. | |||
| :::::: Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about). | |||
| :::::: minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me. | |||
| ::::: Counts: | |||
| ::::: 19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one). | |||
| ::::: 11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski. | |||
| ::::: 6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content. | |||
| ::::: 1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley. | |||
| ::::: 1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved. | |||
| ::::: It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts ''most'' IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.) | |||
| ::::: But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing '''complete''' summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. ] (]) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it. | |||
| ::::::I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed ''every'' IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. ] (]) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was: | |||
| :::::::: ''"{{user6|Wtshymanski}} is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "'' | |||
| ::::::: That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that. | |||
| ::::::: ''"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled."'' So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? ] (]) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) ''was'' the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. ] (]) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. ] (]) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. ] (]) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. ] (]) 11:06, 6 March 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. ] ] 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) | |||
| *::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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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) | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here: | |||
| {{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. — ] <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. | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story. | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article. | |||
| The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'': | |||
| Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with ''"Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required"''. Please don't fall for it again. --] (]) 07:34, 6 March 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''. | |||
| :Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Misplaced Pages users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable . This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. ] (]) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.() | |||
| ::Ah. Found it! | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| {{Quote|quote= "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." - ''Wtshymanski''}} | |||
| 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'' | |||
| * again, {{u|DieSwartzPunkt}} and {{u|Andy Dingley}} you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done '''you should make a concrete proposal for action''' ] (]) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's ] who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. ] (]) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. ] (]) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Misplaced Pages intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed ] which would be a good starting point. ] (]) 15:27, 6 March 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.'' | |||
| ===Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski === | |||
| {{userlinks|Wtshymanski}} | |||
| * '''Support''' - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of ] editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. ] (]) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. ] (]) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. ] (]) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --] (]) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. As Wtshymanski himself said, ''"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."'' --] (]) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' The complaint states that ''"W has a well documented, long term pattern of ] editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits."'' But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him '''more''' for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. ] (]) 18:35, 6 March 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. | |||
| == {{u|Zhanzhao}} and {{u|DanS76}} == | |||
| {{archivetop|status=At SPI|result= ] <small>]</small> 2:41 pm, Today (UTC−5)}} | |||
| See the admission . His editing is seriously whacked, and an indefinite block is in order.]<sup>]</sup> 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Where's the "whacked" part? ] (]) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::See for starters. Also see recent history on the ] page.]<sup>]</sup> 19:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where's the "whacked" part? (I've seen all of that. You need to point at crazy edits.) ] (]) 19:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: from the other sock is crazy.]<sup>]</sup> 19:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :So can I confirm that we are having the discussion here instead of at the SPI article whre this was? Its hard to split my attention up as you'll notice that my activity is slowing down in recent years. | |||
| 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''. | |||
| :As mentioned, DanS and I are brothers. same household, so I can free admit that a check of logs will identify us as being on the same router network. We are not the same person, in fact I think I'm not even as active as him any more. I was the one who introduced him to Misplaced Pages, hence our interests in wikipedia articles may have overlaps. In the topics mentioned here where an overlap occured, all have the common factor of being hot-topics in Singapore. Guess what, we both live in Singapore. However, while we might hold some similar views, (same political party support etc) our thoughts might vary in the specifics. | |||
| 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 ]'' | |||
| :I.e. if you see ], though both of us were involved in the same discussion, I wanted to give the subject in question a chance by only asking for a temp block for her to cools off, while my brother DanS was basically asking for a full ban. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| :Similarly, if I were just a sock, creating an account to bend consensus or skew voting, you can see here ] that I was the only one who endorsed the motion, while Dan did not, even though he could have since he was involved in the discussion higher in the thread. | |||
| So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Its hard for me to find other examples, as I do not always pay attention to which articles he is active in, and vice versa, except ones which we are both talked about over dinner - which of course is what led to this problem in the first place. ] (]) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive. | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| :*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content. | |||
| :*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven. | |||
| :*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ]. | |||
| :*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy. | |||
| :*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo. | |||
| :*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at. | |||
| :*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either. | |||
| :*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}} | |||
| *:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Followup=== | |||
| ==Harry the Dirty Dog== | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{archive top|status=resolved|result=Everything seemingly resolved amicably here. Nicely done! {{nac}} --] (]) 22:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Firstly, I am sorry if this is not the correct page to report this information but I am not greatly experienced in publishing reports. This is a query into whether a certain thing is acceptable conduct. Maybe this breaches ], I have no clue. Anyhow Harry the Dirty Dog and another somewhat disruptive editor (]) have been engaged in a series of Wiki-ding-dongs across a handful of pages (no need for me to list them as that is not the issue). I spotted the edit-warring at ] (because I actually keep my eye on Shookenlover and not Harry but I have been on business for a few days) and issued two identical cautions (not templates), , and . Harry proceeded to remove the comments which he is welcome to do under ] but what concerned me was the summary . So I felt the best thing to do was the remark but then . It is not acceptable to call someone a vandal if he/she isn't and I have not been called this before. --] (]) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]] | |||
| <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :As noted, I have the right to blank my talk page. Any attempt to interfere with that right can be classed as vandalism. Hense my edit summary. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry </font>] ] 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please give proof of this "interference" by showing where I reverted you on your talk and then show where restoring blanked information is considered vandalism. Thank you. ] (]) 21:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A 3RR notice had already been placed by ]. I removed that notice since I considered the matter dealt with, and made no further edits on that article. It was not necessary for ] to put another warning, especially since I had not made any further edits to the article since the original notice. (Had I continued to revert the notice would have been fair enough.) Any attempt to interfere with the right of a user to blank his talk page can be classed as vandalism. Hence my edit summary. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry </font>] ] 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Extremely Annoying situation == | |||
| '''Just for the record'''. came before the official admin template . So the claim of "already warned" when he made the first "vandal" accusation is false. Apart from that I see that nothing else I have done amounts to vandalism OR any kind of improper conduct. --] (]) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :Yes, apologies, I thought that GB fan's warning had come first. I was going from memory and it was all happening so fast. So I withdraw the vandalism comment unreservedly. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry </font>] ] 21:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::All right, we can draw a line to this discussion. It was all a lapse of judgement, no action is required so this can be closed peacefully. Thanks --] (]) 21:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it. | |||
| == Something Awful == | |||
| The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions. | |||
| I am concerned about the recent addition of a section on Aatrek to the ] article. I thought about putting this on the BLP noticeboard, but I'm not sure if it quite qualifies. | |||
| ] | |||
| Background: He joined SomethingAwful.com back in the mid-00s. He was made a moderator of the TV forum some time after that. Well, a year or so ago, it came to light that he had been convicted in 2007 of child molestation from the 1990s. When that came out, he was demodded and banned. Now, someone is trying to add a passage to this effect on the article for Something Awful. | |||
| ] ] | |||
| I rejected it on three grounds. | |||
| #Inadequate sourcing: there is a source saying he was a forum mod, and there is a source saying he was a sex offender, but there is no source from a ''third party'' indicating any notability to this outside of the SA community. So as it is, it comes across as forum drama. The other incidents on the page - the murderers and Slenderman - have their relationship with SA explicitly sourced. | |||
| #BLP Coatracking: there seems to be no reason to add this to the article other than to widen knowledge of Aatrek and/or to smear SA. | |||
| #The person who introduced it is named ], which stinks of ]. But since then it's been defended by at least one other editor. | |||
| they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough. | |||
| I suspect sockpuppetry, I've hit my three revert limit, and I've already received off-wiki harassment for this, so I yield and offer it to the wider community. I might be wrong, but I'd like to have more eyes on this please. --] (]) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Golbez, I am sorry you have received "harassment" over this. However, your bias is obvious. You have admitted that you are a member of the Something Awful website. In addition, there are many issues with the article and points that you have raised can be applied to other sections. As you admitted on the Talk page, there are other issues which could be removed. However, you only choose to act on sections that you feel "smear" the club that you paid money to join. You refuse to act in helping clean up the citations, and instead delete the work of others while admitting obvious bias and refusing to step back. I think that is very unprofessional and goes against the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. Please hold yourself to higher standards, you're an administrator and should be above this. Editted this comment as I made it (and the edit to the Something Awful Page removing the uncited information with Sean Smith) with my logged in username. ] (]) 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::Sorry, was I supposed to keep reading after you put harassment in quotes? Interesting, you had so many words after that too. --] (]) 02:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == IP vandalism == | |||
| :Inadequately sourced, certainly. And of almost zero relevance to the subject of the article, as indicated by the complete lack of WP:RS actually discussing the conviction in relation to the forum. ] (]) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::I've blocked NotAAtrek for clearly being ], and any unblock would be contingent on both a username change and an agreement not to edit anything related to Something Awful. ] (]) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's also a BLP concern here, which is laid out by ]. We should not be including that information on an individual that is not notable from our perspective. That the supposed incident(s) had little to no impact on the website itself is of course the other problem. It should be kept out. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::::Thanks for that link, I didn't know it was there. That helps. --] (]) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This user: ] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| == Copyvio - removal of tags by Spearmind == | |||
| :including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{la|Patrick Awuah, Jr.}} | |||
| ::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. – ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{la|Rocky Dawuni}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Spearmind}} | |||
| {{u|67.131.235.220}} has placed speedy delete notices on ] and ] (which should have been copyvio notices) which have been getting edit-warred off. {{u|MyNameIsVlad}} followed by placing a copyvio notice on the Rocky article in , which {{u|Spearmind}} (ouch) reverted. | |||
| Efforts by the IP and Vlad to resolve with Spear on Spear's Talk page were met with aggression (that made no sense) - see discussion . | |||
| I have restored the tags and logged the copyvio reports, but I doubt they will stick. | |||
| In general, as you can see from his contribs Spear is a newish editor and is editing '''very''' aggressively and on bad grounds. | |||
| '''Please restore copyvio tags and protect articles and give Spearmind a block for COPYVIO and edit warring'''. | |||
| *(note - just this morning I had a bad experience with Spearmind at ] that led to that article getting protected) | |||
| *(note - Spearmind opened a thread on (what he thinks is incorrect) efforts to tag the articles in AN, - whoever acts on this should close that)] (]) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Small correction: I originally converted the speedy deletion request on ] to a copyvio notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rocky_Dawuni&diff=prev&oldid=650070007). ] (]) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks Jytdog, and thanks {{U|EdJohnston}} for protecting the one. Both are now deleted as blatant copyright violations. If anyone wants to deny that, or has denied that and edit warred over it, perhaps they should have the rest of their contributions investigated for NOTTHEREness. ] (]) 02:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Cheers, {{la|Peace Hyde}} probably would also fall into this group, {{u|Spearmind}} seems to have reverted the copyvio there too. ]<sup> ] <span style="color: #FF9912;">|</span> ]</sup> 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : As said Im astonished how fast articles become deleted if just a part is copied from somewhere else. It does not mean everything is copied most is real editors work. It should be fixed in an more appropriate manner giving time to have the lines in question removed not the whole article. All these people were notable.] (]) 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I reviewed the Patrick Awuah, Jr. history, and it should be noted that it doesn't look at all like the OP makes it out. Spearmind was the THIRD person to remove the speedy deletion notice, one of whom was an admin who declined the speedy deletion request. This doesn't look like someone acting in bad faith; any editor (except an article creator of a recently created article) is allowed to remove a speedy deletion notice and attempt to fix an article instead in good faith. If there were some copyvio issues, we can excise those without deleting the article, and I'm more worried that this is being characterized as Spearmind acting unilaterally; as I note he wasn't the first to remove the speedy notice, he was the third, and an admin declined the speedy, before someone came by immediately undoing this admin action and re-tagging the article. THAT'S more disruptive than someone who is making a good-faith request for temperance. Lay off the speedy requests for a while. --]] 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks for this voice I couldnt just believe what is going on here. Thanks for reviewing. ] asked for the second time within 2 days or so to block me he is absolutely not constructive in such matters. Please restore the articles! Ummm yes I came in peace.] (]) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not going to undo the actions of other admins here, but what we need is a rational discussion of what happened, how to best fix it, and how to move forward amicably. What we don't need is people shouting at each other and demanding blocks. I'll ping the admins involved in the deletions, decline, protections, and other issues with these articles to get some more input. {{ping|Ged UK}} {{ping|Drmies}} {{ping|EdJohnston}}. Lets try to find a way to talk this out and arrive at a solution that is best for the Encyclopedia, and try to get out of the revenge & punishment mindset here. We all want what is best, we just need to look at the material objectively, and figure out how to make this work. It may be this stuff needs to stay deleted, it may need to be restored, it may need to be started over from scratch. I don't know. But I do know that the way this is headed isn't good for anyone, and we need a new way to look at this problem. Let's look at it as a thorny content issue we need to work together with each other to make Misplaced Pages better, rather than a conflict where we need to punish people. --]] 02:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: To be fair, the IP user was ] who declined his original speedy deletion request to resubmit it since the decline was due to not being able to access the original content. So his new request was simply following the directions of the admin by resubmitting and including a web archive of the page in case it goes down again. Granted, he did not wait "a day or two" but still, he was definitely acting in good faith by reapplying the tag with more information. I do agree that we should move forward from this, though. Big portions of several of those pages dinged on the copyvio report, so at the very least, that content should be removed. Since the copyright violations seem pretty extensive, we may also want to run samples of the rest of the text through Google to see if bits and bobs were not copied from other places. ]<sup> ] / ]</sup> 03:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's a good idea. Let's do that. Let's do anything except demand blocks. --]] 03:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I probably erred in declining the speedy when I couldn't access the page, I should have left it for someone else as it may have been an issue on my end accessing it, for some reason. FWIW, the guy is clearly notable, and it seems he needs an article writing. There was enough in the original version to construct something that doesn't copyvio. ]] 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jayron, I don't see the thorns: it was copied to begin with. ] (]) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It should not be that easy shooting articles that way. Someone might play lottery with the admin in charge getting rid of articles he doesnt like. There must be strong barriers. When copyright content is challenged there is a procedure of fixing it needed. Im sure there were many good articles lost unjustified.] (]) 03:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There is a procedure in place, though. Both of the notices have instructions on what to do if you disagree/have further information, in the case of the speedy deletion, it's to discuss it on the article's talk page (with a big button that takes you there and has some prefilled text), and in the case of a copyvio, it's in the actual request's page (which is linked from the notice as well). The notices involved only serve as that, a notice of a requested action. It's ultimately up to the admin to look at the content and people's responses, and then make a decision. ]<sup> ] / ]</sup> 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} thanks {{u|Drmies}} ] (]) 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Jayron32}}, I acknowledge that I didn't take as much time as I should have to provide all the diffs. I did check that there was copyvio (there was), and I trusted that any admin acting here would do the same. Drmies said she did. So.. done. And Spear was ''way'' out of line in removing the tags, in my view. No blocking action there again... so be it! Spear will learn to not edit so aggressively eventually, one way or another. ] (]) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] should not have been removing {{tl|copyviocore}} notices. There is a procedure for addressing these, which he did not follow. A copyvio notice is not a speedy deletion tag. The violation was already entered in the right place, ]. The actual violation looked fixable to me. But if Spearmind wants to make a habit of removing the copyvio tags without making any attempt at a fix, it's not likely to end well. ] (]) 04:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I definitely made the mistake of using the speedy deletion banner when not 100% of the current article was copied. My analysis was that the articles started with copyrighted content and therefore it would just be better to restart with a clean slate. I won't make this assumption in the future. {{u|Spearmind}} saw me concentrate on Ghana articles ( that's because I was reviewing article creations by {{u|Nkansahrexford}} who concentrates on Ghana) and assumed that I was on a mission to delete articles about Ghana. What I deplore is {{u|Spearmind}}'s attitude on his talk page. I tried to establish a dialog and asked him to use the talk pages instead of just removing banners but he would not listen and became aggressively defensive. | |||
| :::Tonight I finished reviewing article creations by {{u|Nkansahrexford}} and applied one additional copyviocore banner to ]. A few other articles have copyvio issues but at a much smaller scale and I decided to let it go. There were also a few copyvio issues from the same user on Commons (see there). | |||
| :::Thanks to everybody who helped with this situation. ] (]) 06:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait a minute. "in the case of the speedy deletion, it's to discuss it on the article's talk page " What I saw my removing of speedy deletion boxes was immediately followed by insertion of copyvio templates. Its that the way it should work? Giving no chance of discussing the matter. Seems to copyvio template is to get rid of Rocky Dawuni, Peace Hyde and Patrick Awuah and alikes which were notable people with lots of links in the outside world. Is it so hard to understand that copyright issues need a solution far away from deleting the whole article, which was not a complete copy at all but work of many editors. Yes and I see absolutely no need to discuss removing speedy delete boxes on personal talk pages. Thats just not the right place. It must be on articles talk page but all are gone now. I deleted one copyviocore because it was an immediate reaction to my removing of speedy delete boxes. And I noticed later it should only be removed by admins. Just exchanging the template to delete an whole article not just the violation. This procedure is absolutely wrong.] (]) 07:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You have said here that you believe that the {{tl|Copyviocore}} procedure is wrong, and in deleting speedy tags you have said (on a number of occasions) that you disapprove of the ] process. If you disapprove of procedures, please go to the relevant talk pages and suggest improvements rather than blindly ignoring those processes which have been developed by consensus. --] (]) 10:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The pages of 3 Ghanaian are gone. Its shocking in which speed notable character articles are removed here which only to some part identified as copy. It was a question of less than 1 hour to remove the 3 articles completely giving no chance for discussion. The current extensive use of copyvio templates is unfair to all the editors worked on it. I think the board here is a good way to address that.] (]) 12:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::See below. The copyvios are gone. If these persons merit articles at Misplaced Pages because they are notable, then just make new articles. No one will stop you. Just be sure that you don't make new copyvios when making the article. But if you want to start a new article properly, and write it in your own words without copying other text or "close paraphrasing" or anything else which is suspect, but start good articles on people who merit them, '''do that'''. No one here has yet told you that you cannot, and no one ever will. --]] 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| I cannot understand what the initial complaint by ] is. Why was it filed here if the complaint is about edit warring? — it should be filed at ] according to the instructions on top of the page. Why do we care that jytdog believes that ] is '''aggressive'''? Those of us who are not ] have no access to the material that has been deleted almost instantly after the notice appeared here, so there is not much point in discussing this, or is there? I would hate to think this is how decisions about blocking editors are carried out. Just my $.02. ] (]) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===related issues at ] now=== | |||
| Currently there is edit warring going on over copyvio tags at the subject article, which the IP editor mentioned above. Spear is trying to keep the tag on (good on you this time, Spear) and the creator is blanking the page. ] (]) 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Well another which we lose because some amount of text was copied? Someone seems to copy this stuff from ghanaweb again and again.] (]) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is '''no problem''' with restarting the deleted article from scratch, without any copyright violations. We lose '''nothing''' if you start the article properly. Indeed, where a person is notable, and where the article needs to be deleted because the first, and all subsequent, edits in the edit history contain copyvios, the '''proper procedure''' is to delete it and start from scratch. Just to put it bluntly, Spearmind, no one is telling you that you cannot create these articles again. When deleted for being copyvios, it's because we have to expunge the copyvio from the history. If you're so concerned with having the article at Misplaced Pages, if the person merits an article, go ahead and create it yourself! No one is trying to stop you! --]] 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Well I can play this ]. So "the wikipedia" wants in every case a restart no re-editing. Can I assume that? I dont think the speedy deletion templates should exist.] (]) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] article: Recurrent IP vandalism of valid references== | |||
| User 72.56.9.232/208.54.38.247 repeatedly vandalizes a legitimate reference to a valid archive of "Jeff Cooper's Diaries." Claims the reference is "link spam," which it certainly is not. This may be a legitimate understanding or it may be a ruse for POV pushing <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by (]) 03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} Diffs? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The two IPs that the original poster (]) is referring to are ] and ]. of one of 172.56.9.232's edits, which does considerably more than remove a reference. It introduces/restores a considerably POV commentary. However, ], you are engaged in an editwar to restore the references. The place to discuss the appropriateness of this reference (and from ], it may not be appropriate) is at the article's talk page. Incidentally, the article is now being discussed for deletion at ]. ] (]) 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Never heard that term until today. It's nice to know that NRA types are editing Misplaced Pages. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Account sharing and block evasion by confirmed troll == | |||
| {{userlinks|Icemerang}} | |||
| See . User:Icemerang claims to be a shared account, one of those accounts (]) being a blocked refdesk troll. ] (]) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Bad-faith accusation of forum-shopping == | |||
| {{User|John Carter}} has been repeatedly accusing me of forum-shopping a DRN thread onto ANI. THE DRN thread in question had nothing to do with me and I didn't even know about it until he brought it up. (Though the user whose conduct I was complaining about was involved, though.) I initially assumed a good-faith mistake and explained (first angrily, then politely with an apology for my earlier snark) that he was mistaken. His indicates he was well-read in the DRN thread, and almost certainly knew I had nothing to do with it. | |||
| I asked for a retraction several times and he just repeated the accusation, and even after the ANI thread closed and I again asked for a retraction he posted on my talk page. | |||
| Could someone tell him it is inappropriate to repeatedly make incorrect forum-shopping accusations against other editors after being corrected? If not, could I get an IBAN? | |||
| ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} I'll admit that what John posted on your talk page wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment, but...don't you remember that you can't make someone retract their comments just because you disagree with them? And it was clear in that very long thread (btw, it was ironic that you brought up ] at one point but then you made longer and longer comments yourself) that John wasn't the only person who thought you—''and'' the user you reported—were forum-shopping; in fact, ''I'' , not John. I have no opinion on an IBAN, although I do agree with him that you need to ]. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 04:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: You posted your own opinion that there was forum-shopping (based on Catflap08's behaviour more than mine) on the article talk page. You later speculated that my ANI thread on Catflap08 was also forum-shopping. This was your interpretation of the facts that before you. The ''facts'' that were before you. You never lied and claimed the specific topic Catflap08 snd I were conflicting over was the subject of an open DRN thread. John Carter did this, without making any reference to you. You and I had a "disagreement", and I never asked you to retract your posts because you were neither posting based on a gross misunderstanding nor lying. I initially ] that once I clarified for John Carter that his understanding of events was wrong he would be so embarrassed by the mistake that he would retract all his comments and apologize. Then I realized that what he had done was not make a mistake but deliberately lie about my activities. What John Carter and I have is not a "disagreement": he is lying about me and I want him to stop. As for ]: If I was still actively requesting a TBAN or block for Catflap08, maybe that would apply, but I withdrew that request two days ago. Now I'm asking for someone to tell a different user to quit his persistent and unjustified attacks against me. ] (<small>]]</small>) 09:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| John's completely inexcusable insinuation is a clear violation of NPA and can be seen as a continuation of efforts to insult and degrade individuals. I make no secret of the fact that I have been involved in the Soka Gakkai material for some time now. Also, if you bothered to actually look, you will note that the topics merit being covered, see how much material can be found on them, and then try to determine weight. Honestly, that is to my eyes probably the most reasonable way to proceed. | |||
| Please make some sort of ''visible'' attempt to act in accord with conduct guidelines in the future. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :@]: was this meant for John Carter's talk page? Your use of the second person implies you are talking to me, but I don't think I've ever interacted with you. Apart from the fact that JC randomly brought up Soka Gakkai in an unrelated ANI thread, and the above post randomly brought up Soka Gakkai in an unrelated ANI thread<u>, I don't see how any of the above is related in any way to my complaint of false accusations ''or'' anything Erpert said</u>. ] (<small>]]</small>) 09:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (edited 10:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ) | |||
| ::Yes, what ''is'' all that about? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::* JoltAsResearch is now blocked by ] for being an "obvious bad hand account". Thanks Harry--but you only ''just'' beat me to it, and to the $10 check from the WMF. ] (]) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :First I think it worth noting that Jolt shows the same simplistic understanding and virtual obsession with NPA in the above comment that Tgeairn has rather regularly demonstrated, and that on that basis the comment provides additional support for the conclusion that this is, in fact, a sockpuppet of Tgeairn. | |||
| :Regarding Hijiri's statements, it seems to me that even in his response to Erpert above there seems to be a rather obvious insistence that Hijiri can, basically, do no wrong. And, frankly, considering that Hijiri himself has demonstrated a remarkable tendency to using obvious, frankly obnoxious, and completely unsupportable personal attacks such as "jackass" and "jerk," I find his sudden aversion to anyone questioning his sometimes dubiously rational and wildly emotional responses amusing. ] (]) 18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I suppose it's ''possible'' that Tgeairn has a sock drawer, but only in the sense that it's possibly for anyone to have it. I doubt it very much. Hijiri, one cannot make an editor retract something; the best thing you can do is say "dude you're wrong", remove it from your talk page, and consider banning him from your talk page. I agree with Erpert that "what John posted on your talk page wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment", and I could phrase that a bit more strongly, but it's not really actionable. If, however, the action you're looking for is an admin saying "John don't do that anymore", I can give you that much: John, please don't do that anymore. I can't and won't block for such a comment, but it's really unhelpful. At the same time, though, Hijiri, ANI may not be the best place for such a request. ] (]) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User page used for canvassing == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Could an admin please take a look at ], being used to canvass editors inappropriately to a Commons deletion request, to judge whether it is appropriate and what action is appropriate if not. Note that the editor in question is a recent (and acknowledged) return of ] (see ]), i.e. is not as new as his contribution list would make it appear. Thanks, '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Deletion request closed as speedy keep. ]<span style="background-color: #9ffff5; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>]</b></span>] 13:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| :: How can I have canvassed anyone? The very same ] policy describes it very well when talking about <u>notifications</u>. Have I notified anyone? --] (]) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) PS: as former commons administrator I do know what's the name for the spurious deletion attempt in commons (fortunately, ]) | |||
| :::I believe that to be ]. It was clearly campaigning to get people to support you in the deletion request. This isn't about the question of the deletion so I shan't comment on it. | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :::But the remains, now accusing anyone who disagreed with Discasto in the DR of "politically motivated censorship", which would seem to be a clear violation of ] and ]. Do we feel that this is appropriate on Misplaced Pages? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP violation, edit warring and sockpuppet == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| *{{vandal|IllyrianDodona}} keeps insisting on false, unreferenced information at BLPs {{pagelinks|Mirnes Pepić}} (), and earlier on {{pagelinks|Marko Baša}} (). I have asked him for sources, given none, and warned him after his editwarring. He in turn gave me a customized warning (); Interestingly, {{Userlinks|Bato Lumbardhaj}}, who signs as "Bato the Illyrian" also gave me a customized warning () from nowhere. I believe these accounts are used by one person. ] 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I have reverted them for the BLP violation and will warn. I can't judge the possibly socking right now; perhaps starting an SPI is the way to go. ] (]) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (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) | |||
| == Urgent admin oversight needed over an IP account == | |||
| :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 == | |||
| See the revision history at ]. The IP's have been personally attacking users with very insulting remarks. ] (]) 09:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Semi-protected by {{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.}}. ] <small>]</small> 09:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Sticker}} Although I genuinely appreciate {{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}'s good faith effort, I think semi-protection solves only part of the problem. The IP accounts called other users cockroaches and many other unspeakable personal insults. Do these IP account not merit a block? Or else, were at risk of getting insulted elsewhere. ] (]) 09:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, they certainly "merit" blocks, but since they are IP-hopping anyway, a block would have no concrete effect at all (unless it was a very large rangeblock). ] ] 09:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'll just gently throw into the mix that some of the have not been particularly civil either, so it looks like the IP has just responded in kind. {{u|Dr.K.}} should ], IP or not. ] ] ] 11:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :When they express clearly bigoted views, that's hardly unwarranted. The IP was not "just responding" to unprovoked uncivil comments. ] (]) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not saying the IP wasn't at fault, and I think semi-protecting the article was the right call ... but when faced with these sort of abusive comments, the best thing to do is keep a cool head and not retaliate. ] ] ] 15:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Different meaning of "just", Paul. ] (]) 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Stupid personal attack" is possibly unnecessary but mild in comparison to the IP's language (I'm about to remove one edit summary); Dr.K., thanks. ] (]) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Violation of Troubles Restrictions 1RR == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The following IP ] has violated the 1RR that is imposed on articles and issues that are to do with or related to the ]. In this instance their insistence on using Derry for the county when per ] it is Londonderry, and their insistence of Ireland as the country over the actual country, which is Northern Ireland. The article of violation if , edits having taken place today. | |||
| :Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| *{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
| This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
| Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] only a few hours before they decided to do go ahead and revert again. Only two days ago after making a change at which was reverted by ] who also left the IP a message notifying of the issue, the IP reverted within the space of half an hour. Whether this constitutes two violations of the 1RR (one which occurred after being notified of the Troubles Restrictions) or just one I leave up to admins. | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| All 21 or whatever of their edits across various GAA articles this month have all revolved around changing this information. | |||
| :To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
| :I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
| :As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
| :I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
| :In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
| I also gave the IP ], to which ] has since given them a formal warning for disruptive editing. | |||
| This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| The IP had been notified about ], ] and ] by three different editors at his talk page prior to their 1RR violation so they know what manual of style must be used on this issue. | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not an expert on NI politics (I prefer to just drive up the Antrim Coast Road and look out of the window) but I believe in the case of Slaughtneill GAC, the ] uses different county names to the Northern Irish government, so "County Derry" can be considered correct. Therefore, I would strongly advise against anyone reverting with a summary of "rvv" and highly recommend using the talk page. As you've also breached 1RR (, ), so take care! ] ] ] 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I may. The other team articles use 'County Londonderry' in their content :) ] (]) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :It's highly likely (I won't go the SPI route) that the IP is a ban/block ] editor, as we've seen an IP:86.xxx around these Ireland/Northern Ireland related articles before. Anyways, there's an agreement that ] is used for the city & ] is used for the county. BTW, ''both'' are within Northern Ireland. ] (]) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ritchie333 there is an agreed ] in regards to this situation. Also we are stating "County Londonderry, Northern Ireland" for the actual geopoliical location of the club and that is not dictated by the GAA. The second sentence of all these club articles does make reference to the clubs belonging "Derry GAA" which satisfies what the GAA call it. If we followed your suggestion then the whole Misplaced Pages Ireland project would be a mess with editors using "so and so use it so use that" as a reason for mass edits and resulting edit-wars. It is why we have the ] and things like the Troubles Restrictions. | |||
| ::Also I have reverted an IP that is being disruptive and is now vandalising as they have been told of the IMOS so my reverts of them in my view do not constitute breaching 1RR. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Semi-Protection == | |||
| :::Understand that, but sports (certainly ] which is incredibly popular all over Ireland) originate from a time when the entire Island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and hence the nomenclature used is something of a ] (note how teams play for the ''province'' of Ulster, which includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic). If ''consensus'' is to use "County Londonderry" full stop, everywhere, no if no buts, that's okay (and indeed it's what I use), but it does mean I'm twitchy about it being "obvious vandalism". ] ] ] 16:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Vandalism or not it violates the 1RR Troubles Restrictions. And yes the consensus is to use County Londonderry full stop regardless, just like consensus is to use Derry for the city full stop regardless. That is what ] makes very clear. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sounds good to me. I just get the heebie-geebies about the word "vandalism".... ] ] ] 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fair enough but after being warned and notified of the manual of styles and 1RR Troubles Restriction it can easily be construed as vandalism. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If the IP is who I think it is, the IP will need to be blocked as it likely won't stop reinserting what it prefers. ] (]) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|:::::::}}A sanction for breaching 1RR will hardly deter them either down the line but it is protocol to report it. Whether they are the same editor or not will have to be seen down the line and dealt with when we get to that bridge. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blocked the IP editor three days for the 1RR violation and alerted them about the discretionary sanctions under the ] case. ] (]) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and massive amounts of copyright infringements == | |||
| :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I stumbled on this editor adding massive amounts of text to articles. A quick google search found they they are cutting and pasting text from other websites into wikipedia. I reverted them with links to the original sources (Examples: , , and ) but this goes way back before today. from last month. Every time I revert an edit and give them a warning, they wait a few hours and do it again. ] (]) 18:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I hold no brief for this editor, Haffy881, who seems not to read his own talk page, but I believe the Edit summary should be written in plain English, which these three examples are not. ] (]) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:49, 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 | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
| 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 | |||||||||
Obvious sock threatening to take legal action
VPN socking blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. Liz 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User
" . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)
- Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it
, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
- Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since
2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
None of this matters
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 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)
- 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)
- Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 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)
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)
- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Mgtow definition
Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of WP:GRENADE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of "typo" indicates to me that they are here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
- As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries
": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories
", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. - Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the
|blp=and|living=parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 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)
- 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)
Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j
Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64
Blocked for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy
I've protected the page for 24 hours. @Rambling Rambler and @Hellenic Rebel are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow dispute resolution processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
(nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks
/24 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 166.181.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive
Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?
There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
- Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172 was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
- Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 was blocked in 2018 for one month.
- Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122 was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
- Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
- Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16 was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
- I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Locke Cole
No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. Star Mississippi 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.
- I replied to this with
What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.
- I replied to this with
Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.
- And I replied to this one with
Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.
- And I replied to this one with
This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) EF 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
bolding policies I've added at the end
- I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. EF 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? EF 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
- Or is that just something that isn't done? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Promotional content about Elvenking (band)
There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. @Elvenlegions: please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. Star Mississippi 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. Liz 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...
User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
- Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
- Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
- A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
- Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
- Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
- Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
- https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
- Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on When the Pawn... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
- Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Bunch of racist IPs/account
Sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment
- GREEKMASTER7281 (talk · contribs)
- 112.202.57.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 186.154.62.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Urgent need for page protection on BLP
Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a content dispute going on at Kay Granger involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article
Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.
This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.
- E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't include all notable alumni in these lists
Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again
Genre warrior sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (1, 2) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- /64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:NoahBWill2002
NOTHERE blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- NoahBWill2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It looks like there's a pretty severe competence is required issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/derivative works, adding their own art to Fan art (and then doing it again after being warned), or adding personal opinion to articles. Lastly this comment is quite inappropriate and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this.
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)
I think admin action is warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:GDJackAttack1 mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places
GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs) has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (example), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (example), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at this AfD. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are phantom settlements.
There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their talk page consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Glenn103
Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
TPA for 83.106.86.95
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
83.106.86.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you please help?
William Swainson got moved from William John Swainson (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at Talk:William John Swainson, and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at Talk:William Swainson. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. Oholiba (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.
- @Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
- Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
POVPushingTheTruth
The truth may set you free, but WP:THETRUTH will get you blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:POVPushingTheTruth is clearly NOTHERE. C F A 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
- Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
- The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
- The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
- The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
- Ongoing Disruption:
- Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
- This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
- Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
- Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
- Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
- Impact on the Community:
- The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
- These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
Request for Administrative Action:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
- Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
- Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources
Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @Ratnahastin over the content in the the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The editor removed significant content, citing User:Sitush/CasteSources as justification. Here are my concerns:
1. Misapplication of Policy:
Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:
The removed content was based on British Raj-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:
Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "AI-generated" and warned me about sanctions under WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, discouraging collaboration.Check here for the warning
Evidence:
Request for Administrative Action:
1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -Their Diff) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@Ratnahastin) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request (please find it here) for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
Best Regards
--- Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Nothing to say about me really bot
Locked (non-admin closure). C F A 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- WilhelminaBlosse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per m:NTSAMR. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Concern About a New Contributor
Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dear Wikipedians,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
- Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
- By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
- She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
- Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
- •
- •
- •
- •
- and many more
- Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @BusterD,
- It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
- Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Remsense,
- I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Simonm223,
- I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can't both criticize someone for
lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL
, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
- In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S-Aura, how did you make the determination
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages
? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) - S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence
- Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.
Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:
| − | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks | + | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla. |
This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.
After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)
| − | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks | + | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;... |
My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all. — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
- I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
- The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
- When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
- The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
- I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
- Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
- Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.
- Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
Followup
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.
I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng
Extremely Annoying situation
Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.
The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.IP vandalism
Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user: user:76.67.115.228 seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrainman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example irisChronomia (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at WP:AIV. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
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)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: