| Revision as of 11:24, 25 June 2015 editRitchie333 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators125,291 edits →Proposal: disable Kww's filter: what?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:08, 24 December 2024 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,016 edits →Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions: close | ||
| 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(72h) | |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=72 | |||
| {{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) | |||
| ==Unexplained / POV removal of content by ]== | |||
| :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] (]) | |||
| ] has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns. | |||
| ::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 ] == | |||
| : – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims | |||
| 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 . | |||
| : – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism | |||
| 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 . | |||
| : – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject | |||
| <!-- 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) | |||
| : – removed references to Muslims, Jews | |||
| ::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::‎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) | |||
| : – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state | |||
| :{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See . Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued: | |||
| ::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
| :Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| ::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===None of this matters=== | |||
| I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : – removed link to ], "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism" | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| : – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic. | |||
| I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Thanks in advance for any comments and / or assistance. ] (]) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : The edit summary ''shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content'' is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :He's trying to purge Misplaced Pages of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted). I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. ] (]) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indef block''' - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's ] to build an encyclopedia anymore. These edits account for vandalism in my opinion and given the particular topics of his dislike, I don't see the editor cheerfully avoiding them in the future. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest ]. ] (]) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| ::JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank you] (]) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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 --> | |||
| :::Is it possible this account is compromised ? Considering his long history of productive edits, then this sudden shift ... maybe it's something to look at ? <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">] ]</span> 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here). | |||
| ::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles. | |||
| ::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading. | |||
| :Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here. | |||
| :Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — ] ] 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 had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) ] (]) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. ] - ] 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{u|Dennis Brown}}, I thought this was possible but even as of today, he continues to create articles on Wisconsin politicians as he has been doing for years. Please look at . ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 02:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. ] - ] 15:33, 16 June 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) | |||
| :First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of this until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with ], where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. ] (]) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit to ], where you removed sourced materiel regarding non-Christian religions. This type of POV edit, with no (in this case) or misleading (in other cases) is the heart of my concern, and perhaps others. Was it judgement impairment due to illness, as you suggested some of the unaddressed issues might be? Or, are you asserting that your account was ]? The key is to understand (a) which other edits your account may have made, like that, with no or misleading edit summaries, that still need to be fixed, and (b) can you offer an assurance that such editing will not happen again. An acknowledgement of why it really happened will help other editors have confidence in your continued participation. Otherwise, why should you not be ] from editing articles about religion and politics? ] (]) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Packerfansam}} could you please address some of the issues such as Joe's question above?<br /> — ] ] 21:09, 17 June 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) | |||
| :Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks ] (]) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::As for being compromised, I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible. ] (]) 21:25, 17 June 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. | |||
| :::I'm unpersuaded. That reasoning would ''maybe'' explain (though it's 2%, not .015%) but it certainly is hard to square with editing out or mention of the "largest gay and bisexual community in the United States" that is found there. That's just one counterexample - there are several others cited above, and below as well. ] (]) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." | |||
| ::::First, let me point out that it was 0.15 not .015, there is a difference. In regards to NYC, there was a section about the city's many, many landmarks and none of the others were mentioned by name, except for I think it was Greenwich, as if it were special or more noteworthy than the others. Without getting into what's right or wrong even, it seems strange to me that one should be especially singled out and recognized apart from the others. ] (]) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| :::::Pardon, but that is an inadequate if not disingenuous explanation for this edit to NYC, where, as you did with many other edits, you removed all mention of non-Christian religions: | |||
| {{talkquote|] is the most prevalently practiced religion in New York<s>, followed by ], with approximately 1.1 million ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm|title=World Jewish Population|publisher=SimpleToRemember.com – Judaism Online|accessdate=September 2, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01w3763682c/1/JCSNY2011_ComprehensiveReport.pdf|title=Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011 Comprehensive Report|publisher=UJA-Federation of New York|accessdate=August 13, 2014}}</ref> over half living in Brooklyn.<ref name=BrooklynJewish/> ] ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/nyregion/new-york-to-add-two-muslim-holy-days-to-public-school-calendar.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news|title=New York City Adds 2 Muslim Holy Days to Public School Calendar|author=Marc Santora and Sharon Otterman|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 4, 2015|accessdate=March 4, 2015}}</ref> followed by ], ], and a variety of other religions, as well as ] or self-identifying with no organized religious affiliation.</s>}} | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :::::Try again. ] (]) 05:38, 18 June 2015 (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. | |||
| {{od}}Please let's don't go through these one by one, arguing whether ".15" or ".015" makes the edits any more defensible. A full-throated denial would be a good start - if Packerfansam doesn't want to go through her contribution history to identify the odious edits that were made by a hacker using her name, the examples here are sufficient to tell her in an instant whether she was responsible for them. Absent a straight-up denial, which we don't have, an acknowledgment or recognition that maybe, perhaps, it's problematic to remove references to, e.g., Jews in New York, Muslims in Michigan, gay marriage from the Republican Party, the Jewish ancestry and civil rights advocacy of a German lawyer, the sexual orientation of a the first gay Republican legislator in Wisconsin, or - by the IP a day ago - the of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach. And that's before we even start on the misleading edit summaries that accompanied these changes (for which she offers a conditional apology). So far I see nothing to assure us that Packerfansam recognizes these edits as problematic or that she will not make similar edits going forward. ] (]) 11:23, 18 June 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=== | |||
| :Continued problematic editing that is continuing to occur , together with ] are both of considerable concern. ] (]) 12:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view. | |||
| :::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Mgtow definition == | |||
| :Okay, this is what certain people seem to want to see - yes, I made updates that are causing this debacle. You can argue about my judgment and whether it's been altered. To me, in my judgment in what I recall, it seemed proper. I don't necessarily know if it was to the excess others believe it was, so I can't rule out a hack. I don't have plans to go out and make particularly controversial edits, my plan for the imminent future is to continue with legislator bios, creating and updating articles as would be appropriate with that. ] (]), 18 June 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)}} | |||
| There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". | |||
| The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ] ] 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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| '''Response & comment''' - This is at best a grudging acknowledgment by Packerfansam of the problems she has caused with her POV edits and misleading summaries, not to mention (indeed not mentioned) the edit warring and sock puppetry. It isn't just "some people" who want to see an explanation and assurances, but nearly every single person who has participated in this discussion. I do not believe that Packerfansam appreciates that her edits contravened Misplaced Pages policy, or that that were in any way improper or disruptive. That being said I also believe that the foregoing is about all we are going to get out of her on the subject, and, as halfhearted as it is, it is something. She is, at least, speaking about it. Going forward, which I assume will take place without a block, I personally would like to see something a little more explicit about the ground rules, whether it comes from her, or from us, by rough agreement. Maybe something like, "no edits to remove content from articles re religion, sexual preference or other demographic characteristics" - I don't know. What I do know is that "no immediate plans" to make controversial edits is not reassuring, and isn't very helpful as a standard against which to measure future behavior. Thoughts and / or comments welcome. Thanks. ] (]) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Look, I have no idea what can offend some people. To me, for instance, creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like that doesn't seem like it should bother anybody. But I can't be sure what somebody could have a problem with. Can I give 100% certainty that nobody will ever have a problem with something I write ever again? No. Do I want to go through this stress again when I already have enough in my life? Also no. ] (]) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If what you mean by that is that you intend henceforth to stick to creating stub articles for Wisconsin politicians, then you are much less likely to run into POV and bias problems. I would recommend including the political affiliation of the subjects, when it is in the sources, and ensuring that the sources you cite actually link to the subject of the article you are creating. I, we, are not asking you to promise you'll never offend anyone again; rather we are asking that you stop removing material from articles because something about it offends ''you''. Thanks. Now let's see what some of the other editors have to say about this. ] (]) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists. | |||
| ::I found your response to be very disappointing. I had thought you "got it", and were willing to move forward, but just didn't want to explicitly own up to your mistakes. But your answers, above, make me wonder. Do you really think the issue was a vague, hard to understand "some people" being "offend"ed? Do you really think the issue was anything to do with was "creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like "? If so, you have a serious problem of ] and or a problem with ]. Examples were laid out for you very clearly here and on your talk page. You are ignoring those details here, and have repeatedly blanked them on your talk page. As a reminder, the problems include this list and ''many more'': | |||
| : – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims | |||
| ::* – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism | |||
| ::* – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject | |||
| ::* – removed references to Muslims, Jews | |||
| ::* – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state | |||
| ::* – removed link to ], "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism" | |||
| ::* – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic. | |||
| ::* removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles | |||
| ::* remove mention of Jews in New York City | |||
| ::* removal of the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach | |||
| ::*] most troublesome, was your ], with your logged out editing all, with 2 exceptions, being reverted by editors as being ] | |||
| ::Are you really sure you want to continue in this way? ] (]) 04:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Time to close''' We do not know the full circumstances under which ] is editing. We know he has health issues and we should leave it at that. He is constructively engaging editors about issues they have, and although we may strongly disagree with some of the edits he has made, he clearly wants to edit constructively and with good faith. Could there be future problems? Sure, but we can deal with them should they arise. Let's assume good faith and encourage ] to continue editing. --] (]) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. Again, it's she, either way, much appreciated. ] (]) 05:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologize for getting your gender wrong! --] (]) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is not too much to ask that Packerfansam state precisely what she intends to do, or not do, going forward; or that we collectively outline our expectations of her. Her POV and misleading edits were blockable and while she is now at least discussing them, she has given no indication at all that she appreciates what the problem is (apologizing ''if'' she has been misleading; confessing to having no idea which of her edits "might offend some people", as though unpredictably thin-skinned readers were the heart of it) and I would like just a bit of clarity about what is expected of her going forward so that if, three or four weeks - or 5 months - hence, we see a new run of POV purges, someone can point back and say, "that is not what you said you would do". If she does not understand the problem, then she can't exercise meaningful judgment in avoiding it in the future. Other than that - yes, I agree, we are done here. ] (]) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it is too much at this point. ] has edited here, without issues, for years. If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them. If the edits in question were due to misunderstandings and/or lapses in judgement, then moving on means she moves on to continued constructive editing. If we continue to push this thing, maybe she says "The hell with this, I don't need this in my life.", she moves on, and we lose another editor. You have accomplished what is important: She is aware of the issues, acknowledged them, stated that she wants to contribute constructively. Now, let's assume good faith and deal with issues in the future if they occur. --] (]) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'''Can't seem to quit''' - Promises notwithstanding, Packerfansam just this morning edited ] to remove mention of synagogues in the city. . She does not seem able to help herself. She has been systematically removing references in articles to non-Christians and non-traditional sexual orientations and despite the extensive discussion here - as well as her claim that she doesn't want any more headaches - she continues to do so. She does not understand the problem, and she is manifestly unable to stop. ] (]) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Agreed.''' It's getting ridiculous at this point. ], I applaud your efforts to caution restraint, but I daresay that assuming good faith at this point at this point would be counterproductive and deleterious to the project. And to be honest, a bit silly. Editors are beginning to become exasperated cleaning up her POV edits, which she apparently has no intention of stopping. As of now, the editor has shown no actual remorse, has been generally avoidant and disingenuous, ignored several attempts to communicate, and is unrelenting in making their unabashedly POV edits (often coupled with misleading edit summaries). Whether they've contributed any significant content in the past is immaterial, and a point rendered moot considering the fact that this behaviour is continuing. For some time, the editor in question has been editing with an obvious political / religious agenda, and is completely unapologetic in doing so. This discussion has gone on for almost a week now, and extending them any good will is almost abetting the disruption, and appears to be only forestalling an inevitable indefinite block. ] (]) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Support Indefinite block''', per above, and no efforts to alter their behaviour or even acknowledge that this is inappropriate. An unblock, of course, should be conditional on a promise to reach consensus regarding removal or wholesale alteration of material related to religion, race, and sexual orientation. ] (]) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'''No sign of abating''' - Early this morning (June 23) she removed a reference to a "figure study of a nude young woman" painted by artist ] as . A couple of editors recently weighed in on her Talk page, urging her to steer clear of religion, so it bears repeating that she has never confined her excisions to those matters, but has swept in sexuality as well - e.g., removing references to various subjects' sexual orientation, and LGBT political issues; edit warring at ] to remove "Playboy" as as reference on the ground that it is or a place for . Repeated admonitions don't seem to have had much effect, but if suasion is the path to be followed, it should at least be comprehensive. ] (]) 11:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Time to close''' Issues are now about content and not behavior. Behavior has been mis-characterized in above "Can't seem to quit" where the editor as much about Christians as it was about Jews. Attempts to paint this as anti-semitic fall short. Subsequently, you that she added in a blind revert. Uncool. The material under "No sign of abating" is unsourced and indeed has a POV because of ''striking'' which is opinion..."Carter's striking figure study...". Being unsourced she ''can'' remove it...personally, I would have just removed the adjective but her actions aren't egregious here. The other diffs are old rehash from May. It is beginning to look as if editors have an ax to grind. Defer to ] for content matters.<br /> — ] ] 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Comment''' - I disagree that it has become a kind of rolling content dispute, and I don't care for the suggestion that I've got an axe to grind. Packerfansam's editing focus and pattern (religion / sexuality / politics) beyond the creation of short articles in my view remains unchanged. And too I confess to being a bit mystified by the deference that is being shown to her given that she has failed to address any but one or two of her earlier, indefensible edits (and those, only in the most general of terms). But I do agree that this has become a huge time sink, and my own convictions notwithstanding, the issue seems to be finding no purchase here. I don't like seeing my credibility as an editor called into question, so I will let this go if that's the decision. ] (]) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*So she removed ''one'' reference to Christianity (that also removed more Jewish info) after this AfD began? (And again, that would be valid population info that she randomly stripped it out for no reason from an article about a major U.S. city, well after this AfD began). Yes, I see how that definitely proves she has no problems with Jews and there's ''no problem with behavior''.... ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 14:24, 24 June 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) | |||
| <div class="NavFrame collapsed"> | |||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| <div class="NavHead"></div> | |||
| :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) | |||
| <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left"> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ===Proposal to indef block Packerfansam for POV editing, misleading edit summaries and refusal to engage=== | |||
| :::"{{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. | |||
| Given the speed at which matters move up and out of ANI, I’m a bit worried that, a few editors having offered their views, the matter will languish without resolution. Several commenters have suggested an indef block, so I now formally propose it. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *'''Support''', as proposer and per above - repeated removal of content reflecting political / religious bias, misleading edit summaries, refusal to engage. ] (]) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' – given that this is apparently a long-term editor who did lots of good work before, but has maybe gone "off" lately, an indef block against a previously "clean" block record seems like overkill. I could support a relatively long block (e.g. months) here for {{U|Packerfansam}}, but even that seems like it might be overkill. It does seem clear that a block of some duration is probably in order here... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This should surely be more of a cause for concern than an opportunity for a ''very'' punative block. I suggest further research is required- surely we also have <s>a</s> some responsibility to ]...? ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - He has ignored my attempts at engagement (other than to blank the template warnings) and continues to make the same kinds of edits. If another editor can get his attention, that'd be great. ] (]) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Modify''' — A sanction of some type, not indef, and allowing for discussion at the user's talk page or here. But the nature of these edits is such that we need to put some immediate protections in place while we try to engage. ] (]) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reluctant support''' - given this editor's long history of sound edits, I'm distressed to say that we have to do this: but something has gone wrong since early May or so, and we can no long rely on an edit by this account to be a sound one, the way we used to. If they refuse to communicate, a block of at least one month ''minimum'' seems called for. --] | ] 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support shorter block''', given the editor's clean block log until now; it will get their attention as well as an indef, which is always an option if needed. On a block log, an indef (which I know isn't infinite) looks worse than a block of fixed duration, and this editor ''may'' be salvageable. ]] 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Sorry, but I've ''never'' seen what function an "attention-getting block" really serves. Either the account is compromised and an indef block is appropriate, or the editor is really an inveterate POV warrior who should not be editing as long as they think that such is appropriate. In the latter case an indef block is also appropriate--a block which can be lifted as soon as...well, fill in the blank, but it starts with "{{U|Packerfansam}}". ] (]) 02:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose indef''', we can use escalating blocks in an attempt to recover this editor. Something like a week for the first block would be sufficient. ] 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:So your premise is that blocking an editor is a good way to recover one? As opposed to alienating them? Strange. ] ] 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::Please don't try to explain my premise, you never seem to get it right. We have to weigh damage to the project against keeping the editor. ] 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::If he's taken a sudden turn toward the Dark Side, it's probably too late already. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is not hard to reblock if shorter blocks do not work. ] 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yes, especially as it appears he's never been blocked before. If he's uncommunicative, a reasonable short block might get his attention. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I don't usually agree with Mr. Corbett, but I do here. As I said just above, I don't believe in attention-getting blocks, and the whole concept of escalating blocks--well, I spent a few years in a place where they believed in something like that, and it never increased my desire to live by their rules. Blocks piss people off, and they should be applied judiciously and appropriately. "Getting attention" is like keying someone's car because they parked it in the wrong place. If it's in the way, you tow it. ] (]) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*The goal is not to get their attention, the goal is to prevent disruptive editing. I suggested escalating block instead of an indef because it give the user a chance to recover while preventing disruption. Remember that communication has already been tried. ] 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose indef''' Something has gone wrong since May and a user with a clean block log is up for an indef. Please do not hand out indefs so lightly. (] (]) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - Just - to be clear, I don't care particularly whether the editor is indef blocked or not. Anything that works is fine with me. As for the scope of the problem, I can add that, at least among the articles he has recently created, he reports the party affiliation of the subject when it is Republican or Independent, but omits it if it's Democratic. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme - these are legislators who served 120+ years ago - but these deliberate omissions are irresponsible at best, and make wholly unnecessary work for others. ] (]) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indef''' - I see no reason to suspect account compromise. Editor is STILL creating new articles for Wisconsin politicians. If any reason should be considered, editor can appeal the block and attempt to provide explanation. Regardless of reason, editor is no longer here to contribute. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' for now. Although ] doesn't respond directly to warnings, his/her behavior has been altered by them. --] (]) 05:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|I am One of Many}} What do you mean by his behavior has been altered? He obviously saw the many warnings as . Then just today he about religion demographics from a town in Norway that was 1.5 percent Muslim. His edit summary for the removal of the demographics table was "bars were out of place." I really don't know what to make of that. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 06:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair, he didn't make that edit today, but on June 14. He also removed the whole box on religion, so we can't say he was targeting Muslims. Finally, I don't know how to interpret his edit summary, but it could just mean he didn't like how tables lined up, so he removed them. I'll also add that I see no evidence of edit waring when he is reverted. --] (]) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That edit summary shows it was made on June 15, at least by Misplaced Pages time, and more importantly was after he had been warned. If he felt the table wasn't properly aligned, he could have moved it somewhere else. It's below another demographic table that was not deleted. Based on his other pattern of removal of information, this is highly suspicious. Additionally he was warned over and over and continued his behavior, as you can see by the activity on his page along with his contributions. If his behavior has truly been altered by being told to stop, this would never have come to ANI. Edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 08:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' for now. He doesn't refuse to engage, he just hasn't engaged on this topic this time around. He uses talk pages: | |||
| *,,,,,,, but typically blanks messages he receives and then goes to their talk page to reply. He ] but that editor didn't reply back(!). He traded replies where he blanked and then ] with another editor...that editor replied back to Packer's talk page so the thread gets lost in the shuffle. Packer is removing posts after he has read them as part of his norm. I would suggest that he isn't talk page savvy but that doesn't mean that he doesn't communicate at all. I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics. on his userpage may reflect a change in POV. He hasn't engaged JohnInDC; that shouldn't be taken that he doesn't engage with everyone. Calls for indef above seem extreme to me. The might be construed as a nuisance as he may think his summary isn't off the mark and suggesting he has to play Mother may I and always use talk pages...well, I'd ignore that too. Being templated thereafter doesn't help but kind of has the ring of ]. Apart from John, the only other editor that has attempted to engage him on this is Ed. None of the supporters above bothered to try. This can be characterized as isolated between two editors. A more cordial approach may work.<br /> — ] ] 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - As I noted above, I don't care what's done as long as the unacceptable editing stops. (I am skeptical that his 36 hour editing pause is significant.) I would note further that his disinclination to explain or defend questionable edits is not limited to the immediate non-conversation with me - three times previously, on three separate occasions (beginning ]), other editors asked him about and warned him against systematically removing party affiliations from Wisconsin legislator articles. As far as I can tell he did not respond to any of these messages. He did ultimately stop removing the material, but then switched over to selectively omitting the information from articles he was continuing to create. I get that this is a longstanding editor with a lot of good work to his credit, but - you know, so am I, and in all honesty if I started removing content reflecting a clear political bias, and camouflaged it with misleading edit summaries, and refused to discuss it - well, I'd ''expect'' to be blocked, at least until I evinced some willingness to acknowledge and discuss the problem. ] (]) 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***You've got that a bit wrong. What you link to above was on his talk page but he on the other editor's talk page and the last sentence leads me to think that he may have thought that removal of party affiliation may have been trying to correct where he thought that he had "been overdoing it" when he had wrote those in before.<br /> — ] ] 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****You are right. I missed that. Thanks. That being said, it is a "response" only in the most literal sense. He ignored the first Talk page message on May 12 (continuing to remove party affiliations), responded to a second (rather stern) May 13-14 Talk page message as you've noted, and then started right back up at it on another 20 or so articles (blanking Democrats only!) and didn't stop until a third Talk page message on May 15. I do not dispute that my messages to him were not the best for eliciting a response from him (I wish I'd done that better in retrospect) but: We've been talking here at ANI for a day and a half, and another editor has left a thoughtful narrative message on his page inviting a response, and so far we have nothing. The only thing that gives me pause is that he hasn't edited for 36 hours, so conceivably he hasn't seen Ed's message or the ANI notification. But I don't find his past level of engagement at all encouraging. ] (]) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****] (after Capitalismojo told him to stop being disruptive) was after he removed the Democratic Party from four politicians (, , , ) and oddly just removed the wikilink to the party from another one , in under 10 minutes. And he responds innocently "what did I do that was so disruptive?" Capitalismojo probably did not follow up out of exasperation. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******Do you realize that he was the one who wrote those articles as well as wrote the particular sentences of affiliation in the first place? Odd that he is called disruptive to edit on when no other editor had touched it. I believe that he saw himself as trying to correct perceived mistakes. He removed whole sentences about party affiliation when they stood alone to that fact but as you note with the , he wasn't trying to obscure facts. Note that he didn't remove the categories of political affiliation? Being told that you are disruptive on an article that only you have edited is just a bit bizarre so yeah, I think his question was in good faith. He wasn't really edit warring or anything like that. He reverted ''once'' but he was trying to communicate also. He was misunderstood in ] ("overdoing" wasn't in reference to the reverts he was doing that day but the inclusions in the past). The hard clamp down and admonishment in that light looks bizarre and I imagine frustrating. We should wait and put the pitchforks and torches up for the time being. He ''really'' isn't being that disruptive.<br /> — ] ] 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *******Oh, but he ''is'' being that disruptive. Removing political affiliations is, as I said above, small change. Beyond that little stuff he has been routinely, almost systematically, removing information from articles relating to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays & lesbians and other groups. I didn't provide an exhaustive list at the outset because I figured my examples were sufficiently representative, and distressing, that more would be perceived as piling on. But if there are questions about the impropriety of his edits, here are a few more (still not exhaustive - there are more still) examples from just the past six days: | |||
| :::::::: - removed reference to the subject's sexual orientation (gay) and associated categories. No edit summary. | |||
| :::::::: - removed text re Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and others with the edit summary of "simplified". | |||
| :::::::: - removed all dab links to Greek Mythology. No edit summary. I can't see anything particularly biased about this but it is plainly disruptive. | |||
| :::::::: - removing non-Christian examples; no edit summary. | |||
| :::::::What assurance - indeed even what ''indication'' do we have that he plans to discontinue these inappropriate edits, beyond the fact that he hasn't changed a page in a day and a half? Maybe the answer is, for now, leave him be and keep an eye on him and see if he continues his POV editing when he picks up the cursor again; fine. But I can't swallow describing these things as "not disruptive". ] (]) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't see why it matters that he created those original articles, there is no ]. I don't see why he would decide to strip them out now unless it's related to his edit that he only works on Republican articles now or he's losing his marbles. I'm rather surpised that anyone would think removing entire sections related to Jews and gays from articles is not ''really'' that disruptive, but I suppose it explains why you're defending him. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In my oppose above I stated "I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics." I too, would like to hear an explanation about those edits.<br /> — ] ] 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Berean Hunter and Drmies. -- <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> 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Comment-I agree with Dennis Brown that medication or some health issues may be involved with Packerfansam. Packerfansam mentioned about some health issues on the talk page. I agree with JohnInDC about keeping an eye on Packerfansam and see what happens. There is a possibility that Packerfansam may ceased editing again for a long time. Thank you-] (]) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Strong Support</s>Neutral''' I am concerned that this editor's contribution history needs to be carefully reviewed for POV edits and unexplained removals with corrections made - I've made some over the past couple of days. Regarding the former, just a brief review of history shows many stub articles of Wisconsin politicians were created by this editor. For members of the Republican party, their party affiliation was included by the editor in the original article and remains to this day. For members of the Democratic party, no party affiliation was included by this editor at any time. Other editor(s) added the affiliation after this odd anti-Democrat etc. POV editing was noted. Regarding removal of content and tags, in addition to the misleading edit summaries noted earlier, most such edits have ''no'' edit summary at all. Both of these sets issues I mention come down to fundamental lack of trust regarding this editors contributions. I've looked at several pages of his contributions and found that these issues are consistent. How far back one must go to review and correct these clearly intentional dishonest edits? An indefinite block while such a review and correction takes place, such as what was done with Colonel Henry, is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Once corrected, ''and'' after the editor responds constructively in an unblock request, ''then'' the editor can hopefully ''begin'' editing in accordance with WP's policies. ] (]) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I am switching my !vote to Neutral based on the interactions here ] and here . I believe the editor "gets it", and we're not going to get a point-by-point "mea culpa" - which we shouldn't need (but I admit a little more of an affirmative "I understand what the concerns are and will do better" would have been the best response. Nor do I think we're going to get help fixing old problems (everything from their IP is fixed, and going back a month on their contributions I don't see any serious issues that have not been fixed that are left - but there was plenty of fixing required". Those who work in Wisconsin articles should keep an eye on the editor - I'll periodically take a look, too. ''Future'' problems should lead to a very swift topic ban from "religion, sexuality and politics, in any namespace, broadly construed". Finally, perhaps the editor would like some coaching or mentoring if in doubt in the future, or just to informally ask some questions. If so, I volunteer to help. Best regards to all, ] (]) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::He hasn't edited in two days and no current disruption is occurring so you have time to review his contribs and make corrections if necessary. He has a clean block log, many articles to his credit and I believe he should be allowed to reply before any decisions are made. If he refuses to engage and starts editing in the same way then blocking may be called for.<br /> — ] ] 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps he should ''not'' have a clean block log. This is very obvious NPOV editing, done in a way to hide his changes. Lacking a response soon, how can no action be a correct response? ] (]) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll say it this way, if and when he begins to edit again he will need to address this issue within an hour or two - giving him plenty of time to respond after seeing the messages on his talk page and reading through this thread. If he makes more POV edits without responding or fails to respond entirely, my "oppose for now" above will likely be converted to "support indef blocking" and if consensus supports the action, I'll do the block myself. By the way, I attempted to email him but he does not have a specified email address.<br /> — ] ] 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} That clock just started 15 minutes ago as he is back and .<br /> — ] ] 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :He responded above about 30 minutes ago. --] (]) 20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers. I edit-conflicted and was going to remove my comment when I realized that. :) I was reading my watchlist from bottom up. I haven't read the reply yet.<br /> — ] ] 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment'''. As noted here ] , the editor is continuing with problematic creation of and edits to articles, yet has dissembled in response to questions about their edits and ''not'', as of yet, either paused in their edits nor given any effort to identifying or correcting their problem edits to date. A block is designed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. One is needed. ] (]) 11:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I don't see any disruption here. The only issue is a content discussion that is ongoing, not disruptive in any way. Mentioning that the population of NYC is 1.5% Jewish is negligible, for example. --] (]) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Comment''' - It's more like 15% and, as the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel, not "negligible" under any sensible meaning of the word. ] (]) 18:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I was starting to wonder if I'd been too harsh in recommending an indefinite block until she posted the excuses above, which are just another example of deceptive editing. Worst of all, 30 minutes after "apologizing" for her deceptive behavior, she logged out to continue it. ] (]) 18:19, 18 June 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) | |||
| '''Summing up thus far''': | |||
| By way of response from Packerfansam, we have: | |||
| :*Some of those edits might have been made by someone with access to my account, or not – I don’t know. (“I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible.”) | |||
| :*I apologize ''if'' any of my edits were misleading. | |||
| :*There was nothing wrong with removing mention of non-dominant religions from various articles, nor with my edit to New York City. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| She has neither denied making, nor offered to explain, any of the several other examples set forth here. | |||
| Whatever happened between August 2014 and May 2015, as of now, someone with access to the Packerfansam account believes (again, just by way of example) that mention of non-mainstream Christian religions makes Misplaced Pages articles too long; that references to a subject’s homosexuality or Judaism are best omitted; that “Playboy” is ] and that material sourced to it should be removed (from the edit war) – and appears to see nothing wrong with any of this. | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since returning from her 48 hour absence, Packerfansam has made 37 edits, including 6 new articles and 2 new categories. She has had ample opportunity to consider the comments here and respond thoughtfully but has commented here only four times and offered no meaningful explanation. She has a clear history of disruptive and POV editing, and I do not understand why, absent clear statements from her that she 1) understands that the edits are unacceptable and 2) pledges to make no more of them, ever, a block of at least some duration should not be forthcoming. ] (]) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner. | |||
| ::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories. | |||
| ::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved. | |||
| :::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens. | |||
| *After again blanking their talk page, the editor is engaging in a discussion at my talk page ]. I would like to be able to convince the editor to do something to regain our trust. Answering some questions I posed is one way. Perhaps there are other ways. ] (]) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP. | |||
| *'''Support'''. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and the medical issue suggests that we should block until she is able to explain that she understands what was wrong with the edits, whether or not she remembers making them. Few argue against her edits being disruptive. We have blocked an editor who we believe is medically unable to contribute constructively. — ] ] 02:12, 22 June 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. | |||
| === Possible sockpuppet === | |||
| Please check as a possible sockpuppet of ]. Examples of similar edits: | |||
| , , , , , - - - - - . ] (]) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Same edits, same squishy edit summaries, same time of day, a Wisconsin emphasis, some of the same ''articles'' - indeed the same edit war at - no question. Nice catch. ] (]) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I don't see anything inconsistent with ]. --] (]) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Perhaps not. But it yields several more examples of biased editing, we can add edit warring to the list of problems (odd that I hadn't noticed it before, even Packerfansam alone), and it calls into question Packerfansam's assertion above that she had been away from the computer for two and a half days inasmuch as one of the IP's edits comes in the middle of that period. ] (]) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*In the UW-Madison edit war JohninDC referred to, Packerfansam's POV edits were reverted 4 times, then 24.178.45.221 took over, making the same edits. (See last 6 edits listed above.) That's classic sockpuppetry - using an alternate account to deceive or mislead other editors or to avoid sanctions. The most recent example involved Packerfansam making an , then 24.178.45.221 returning almost an hour later (3 minutes after Packerfansam's last edit and ''after commenting on this board''), to make a that was reverted by JohninDC. That's a clear attempt to evade detection. ] (]) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I think it is good idea to stop the mind reading for now. There are good possible explanations for everything that we just don't know right now. First, if he is concerned about others using his account, he may log off every time he leaves the computer and sometimes forgets to log on when he returns. It may be that he removed minority religions based on a good faith assumption, but he will come to see that it is not a good idea. Let's see if we can get this resolved peacefully so that everyone can get back to constructing an encyclopedia and retaining productive editors. --] (]) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Respectfully, please look at these edits, clear examples of ], made ''after'' these issues have been raised at the editor's talk page and ] and after the editor responded here: | |||
| # '''Revision as of 01:32, 2015 June 17''' , , Editing ] as {{IPVandal|24.178.45.221 }}, removes cited information without ] or talk page explanation. The 2nd & 3rd edits noted remove sexuality and religion information, edits that are consistent with other problematic edits that have been made by this editor. | |||
| # '''Revision as of 17:02, 2015 June 17''' Editing ] as {{vandal|Packerfansam}}, adds reference to a Wisconsin political stub article <nowiki>* ], Wisconsin State Assemblyman</nowiki> | |||
| # '''Revision as of 17:53, 2015 June 17''' Editing ] as {{IPVandal|24.178.45.221 }}, removes referenced information about other than Christianity (in this case, Atheism, but as documened elsewhere, she has been similarly removing Judaism, etc.) <s><nowiki>42.7% of Fond du Lac residents do not affiliate with any ].<ref></ref> </nowiki></s> | |||
| # '''Latest revision as of 23:58, 2015 June 17''' Editing ] as {{vandal|Packerfansam}}, makes a minor edit to another Wisconsin political article. | |||
| This is not supported by the "I forgot to login" excuse, just as their other problematic edits are not explained by the ]. Per ], this has been going on since May 15th of this year. ] (]) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Hoaxing again at Kenny Loggins == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| We need a range block because of recent activity by the long-term hoaxer, the ]. IPs involved today are: | |||
| *{{checkIP|2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40}} | |||
| *{{checkIP|2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A}} | |||
| == Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j == | |||
| Perhaps we can temporarily rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :And now another spate of hoaxing by {{checkIP|2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC}}. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :15 of the last 16 hoaxer IPs started with 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0, so it would be very helpful to block this range. ] (]) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And very quickly after that one we have this one: {{checkIP|2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:7132:4B62:E645:80BE}} | |||
| :: |
::: 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) | |||
| *<big>'''HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE.'''</big> I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make ''me'' care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. ] (]) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{re|Drmies}} Maybe this will help: . It was recommended last time this came up here, and I bookmarked it. ] (]) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ****The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. ] (]) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *****] implies that this covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, so perhaps not appropriate. That said, that's a fraction of the total possible IPv6 IPs, so I have no idea. ] (]) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******Pinging Mr. IPv6 {{u|Jasper Deng}} to see if he can help out. And (canvassing) perhaps more admins could put in their two cents ? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Drmies|Samwalton9}} 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--] ] 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Jasper, I appreciate the note, but I'm just not going to venture there. I wish we had a button we could push that would pull up a list of admins willing and able to make rangeblocks. I'm not one of them. Thanks, ] (]) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm blocking {{rangelinks|2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64}} for two months. shows that the previous rangeblock by ] expired on 14 June, which does fit with the dates of the above vandalism reports. ] (]) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just to add a technical note, while a /64 should be, and appears here to be a single user akin to an IPv4 address, the protocol is new enough that we should keep in mind the possibility that it may not always be, with either rapidly changing /64s from one user, or many users on one /64. Also, when this block expires, if we need to extend it again, linking may help get a quicker block. ]] 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do have to emphasize that looking at WHOIS is of utmost importance with IPv6; my comment strongly depends on the ISP being residential. It most certainly does not apply to mobile or satellite ISP's.] ] 03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*], ] --] <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Thanks {{U|NeilN}}. No wonder I hadn't seen it--it's only been here since 2008. As far as I'm concerned, though, it should be renamed: "able to make..." ] (]) 01:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| == Therequiembellishere changing every biographical political article infobox to officeholder == | |||
| *{{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. | |||
| Therequiembellishere appears to be engaged in making wholesale changes of infoboxes on biographical political articles to Infobox officeholder, despite being advised otherwise on ] by ] and I, which he appears to have ignored for the past four weeks despite my best efforts to redirect him to respond to the discussion on his talk page several times in the edit summaries as well as two messages I sent on his talk page. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Therequiembellishere was asked by ] why he is changing MP infoboxes to "officeholder and going against the instructions for ] which states that the appropriate derived template should be used, and Infobox MP is clearly the most appropriate. | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| claiming that he's "been told" in the past that using those titles involves an unnecessary redirect and that "officeholder" was best but understands that it's possible the precedent has changed since then. | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| , supporting Bagunceiro stance that the template provides clear guidelines on infobox to use. I added, there is no harm in there being a redirect that is the whole purpose of redirects therefore there is no reason for doing this and asked him to please stop doing this. | |||
| 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) | |||
| He failed to respond to this and continued to change the infoboxes on 22, 23, 26 and 28 May. | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I reverted these changes back and sent him another message on advising him again that ] states; "Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." Therefore, despite previously being advised of this (from ] and I), why he is changing every infobox to officeholder? I asked him to either stop doing this, explain why he continues to do this (as per ]) or the matter can be taken to ]. | |||
| ::{{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 == | |||
| Therequiembellishere decided to ignore this again and on 11 and 15 June continued to ] and change the infoboxes to officeholder. | |||
| {{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 ] == | |||
| After I reverted these back, he finally responded on appearing to concede that the most appropriate infobox should be used but then continued to do the same thing. ] (]) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{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. | |||
| : It says clearly at the top of this page: "''When you start a discussion about an editor, you '''must''' notify them on their user talk page.''" | |||
| : You have not done so; please do so immediately. --] (]) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 | |||
| {{user5|Therequiembellishere}} Userlinks for convenience. ] (]) 02:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Addendum. User notified by Robert McClenon, ] (]) 02:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy | |||
| <s>I've had similiar problems with this editor over a few years, concerning succession boxes. Also note, the editor's talkpage hasn't been archived since 2009. This may be a ] issue. ] (]) 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again | |||
| :Hi, I'm in a pretty busy period right now and haven't had time to reply until now. Which is why I've not been terribly available over the past few weeks to answer Tanbircdq's comments. That is, I admit, shitty, but I largely avoided the pages in question until I was more available to answer knowing that I wouldn't be able to competently reply at the time. I finally carved time out to respond after Tanbircdq's reverts became significantly more like wikistalking and I finally addressed him/her on the merits of his contention. | |||
| :I'll talk about the wikistalking first since it's on my mind. This "dispute" started out with a few frontbench British politicians and he/she followed me to very niche articles like new American ambassadors and federal judicial nominees that he had never had real activity in before. In our recent communication he/she claimed that I couldn't possibly know the usual articles that he/she edits, and condescending said "many editors are involved in editing those articles, not just you" as if I was claiming ownership. I wasn't, I was annoyed that he'd broadened this dispute out to articles that he hadn't previously been attracted to which I know because I've been a part of the federal judge's articles for at least the past seven years and recognize most of the usual editors involved. Tanbircdq is not one of them. Tanbircdq claims he/she only made these edits after receiving an undo notification but, using as just one example, that's a lie. | |||
| ] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as the meat of the dispute itself, this is honestly jut so ridiculous to me. Firstly, Tanbircdq is claiming to be a part of some collective action with Bagunceiro, but that it patently untrue. Bagunceiro asked on my talk why I had been changing to officeholder and I replied that under the previous precedent (that I had been hounded for in the past when I was doing exactly what Tanbircdq seems to be obsessed with now), I was told that the specificity of what political office they held created an unnecessary redirect to the standard "Infobox officeholder" and that it was best to use that as the standard. Because, at the end of the day, no matter which marker is used, the information is displayed in exactly the same way every time. I also see additional issues with persons like ] and ] who serve in multiple roles over their career. Are we supposed to determine which role was most notable to their career and use that as this distinguishing marker when "officeholder" as a neutral mode serves the same purpose? Regardless, Bagunceiro never commented again. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::@] 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| (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) | |||
| :Then Tanbircdq started getting involved and has been hiding behind this, in my opinion, pretty insignificant issue to revert all my work to various infoboxes wholesale. He claims is issue is a technical one (whether to use "Infobox judge" or "Infobox mp" or whatever), but has been making his point by removing the content edits I've made to the rest of the actual box. In particular, many of my infobox edits do serve a technical function make make it easier for editors for finding and editing the infobox by standardizing the information displayed to be in a more columned format (using evenly spaced equal signs between the section header and the information), arranging the sections more like the order they will appear in the box and in removing unneeded and empty sections that amount to bloat that needlessly increase the bytes of the article, often by over 1,000. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks == | |||
| :After finally replying to Tanbircdq, I went back to all the articles he/she had removed my edits from and brought them back. I said he/she was free to go in and put the "Infobox ..." marker in but my primary concern was just getting the edits back. Which Tanbircdq did, but didn't reply to me in that time I was still at the computer and so I assumed the issue was by-and-large a settled matter. So I have to say I'm honestly pretty surprised this has continued to exist at all, especially going to ANI without me making a single new edit in between. Or in notifying me, which I have to say reeks of trying to get some administrative action put against me without my knowledge, even after being told here to do so, my notification came from Robert McClenon and, indeed, Bagunceiro came in to make it easier to locate. I also have to add that I don't really understand GoodDay's comment here, since the issues are totally separate and my dispute with him was a content issue, whereas this is a technical issue at best. Furthermore, his bringing up of competent, using my unarchived talk as an example is just insulting. ] (]) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}} | |||
| *] | |||
| 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? | |||
| ::@Therequiembellishere: I have not made further comment because I did not feel I had anything constructive to contribute and have not been following the matter closely. This should not be seen as tacit support. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::For the record my position is as follows: | |||
| .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) | |||
| ::: Your to my question appeared to recognise that you were in error but it seems that you have continued to make these changes. | |||
| ::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following: | |||
| :::You do not appear to understand templates, or the benefits of indirection and inheritance. There is no shame in that, but it does mean that you should be even more assiduous in following the instructions for them. | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019. | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month. | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear. | |||
| ::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks. | |||
| ::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Alternatively you may have a deeper understanding than I and although you haven't yet explained what it is, a good reason for these templates to be deprecated. In which case you should discuss these concerns to obtain consensus for changing the instructions. I guess the talk page for the template is the best place for this, perhaps with heads up messages on pages such as ]. If that is not the right place then someone there will be able to suggest where. Unilateral wholesale action is not the right answer. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Comments by Locke Cole == | |||
| :::With regard to what you call stalking by @Tanbircdq. I have no idea whatever of his motives, but his action in reverting your changes quickly was beneficial. Subsequent edits would have made unpicking the mess much more difficult. I imagine the job was a bit tedious. If the two of you have any history of animosity then I would urge you both to put it behind you. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| '''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}} | |||
| ::Please stop what you are doing and engage. ] (]) 12:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include: | |||
| * {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}} | |||
| ::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}} | |||
| * {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}} | |||
| ::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}} | |||
| This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding Therequiembellishere's ad hominem accusations, the only time I've edited the infoboxes on those articles is when I've received a notification that my edit has been reverted, in which case I've looked through Therequiembellishere's contributions to find other articles in which he's done the same thing on. I've gone through my notifications and present diffs of the times when I've been notified with a revert; (12 May), (28 May). (5 June). (15 June). Note: the only time I've edited the articles was on 12 May, 28 May, 5 June, 15 June. | |||
| ::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Being too busy to reply is a poor excuse: you say you've been busy but not busy enough to revert my edits as well as change infoboxes on other articles. No, you didn't avoid the pages in question at all as the diffs clearly show you were repeatedly edit warring and clearly breaching BRD in those articles (as and example shows). I felt the need to say that many editors are involved in editing these articles because you appeared to suggest that I shouldn't be editing on "articles far outside" my "usual purview". | |||
| ::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::::Just to be clear I didn't revert your work, I merged the information with the original information that was on each article before you changed them, and as Bagunceiro has pointed out it was very tedious indeed but I was willing to spend the time and effort to do this rather than just simply revert your edit. On the contrary, it was you who reverted me every single time. My motives in this are simply to uphold policies and guidelines. There's no history of animosity between Therequiembellishere and I, I just take exception to being ignored the way he clearly has. | |||
| {{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You can't claim to be a victim of injustice here when I clearly asked you that you can either stop, explain why you're doing this or the matter can be taken to ANI (as you can see I wasn't joking), and patiently gave you every possibly opportunity to do this, and only at the last resort took the matter to ANI as you failed to do this. | |||
| ::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--> | |||
| ::::Finally, it's not mine or the community's job to spend time cleaning your mistakes by putting the correct Infobox marker after you've changed them. I hope you now accept this policy/guideline as this recalcitrancy must stop. If you change another infobox to officeholder without justification then we'll be back here again for sanctions to be imposed against you as I'm not prepared to send multiple messages on your talk page which you won't respond to. If you have a problem with this then (as I suggested by Bagunceiro) you raise an RfC so consensus can be changed on the issue as a few editor's opinions on one talk page is not appropriate nor sufficient to suggest change on something which if consistent would potentially affect thousands of articles which have followed a formula over the course of the last 10 years. | |||
| :::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history? | |||
| *:Or is that just something that isn't done? – ] (]) (]) 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 == | |||
| ::::Back to the matter in question, the problem isn't the content dispute itself, it's your failure to respond with other editors on your talkpage (regarding issues about your editing) due to what appears to be your ] approach. Can you provide an explanation why this might be? ] (]) 19:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Promotional content about Elvenking (band) == | |||
| :::::Hi, sorry again, I'm travelling for the next while and internet was spotty. Bagunceiro, I recognize that you were silent on the issue and thus were not giving tacit support and that was why I was confused as to why Tanbircdq kept bringing you up as if it was a collective response. As far as the template go, I suppose I don't really see why this has been such a big deal and don't know how the markers really make a difference, so some education would help. I tend to edit a bunch of infoboxes en masse, such as during the lead to to an election, and I found the use of "officeholder" as a standard to be the best way of going through a high number of articles easily. I have to disagree that his reverts of my edits are beneficial, however. This is me being protective of my edits, of course, but it is frustrating when I take an infobox and overhaul all of it only to see them all go away and return to a messier state because of the marker up top that is unseen to the casual reader. That is the crux of my issue, that instead of these massive reverts, that just changing the markers would be a less difficult solution and still provide the content best suited for readers. Especially during election time, when these articles tend to be at their peak visibility. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::::They're not ad hominem accusations, they are a legitimate complaint I am raising. It is simply a lie to say that you have only ever made these reverts after getting a notification because you made a conscious effort to stymie my editing by expanding into articles I had been editing so you could track what else I was working on. I did make a very conscious decision to move away from the British MPs after the frustration by the end of May and move on to American ambassadors (a new project) and federal judicial nominees (a continuation of what I've worked on for years). Just using the examples you brought up, you've carefully included only the diffs where I reverted you the the history of these articles (which are by no means a hotbed of activity) clearly show you making the initial revert of my edits. Which, to my mind is blatant stalking and a lie. I am not saying in any way that you are barred from editing these pages, but that the move into them at this time was done to limit my ability to edit. . | |||
| I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. | |||
| :::::The thing is that you were still going back to far messier information displays with a combination of unused infobox sections, unneeded sections, or simply unnecessary over-explanatory information in some sections that all amount to the bloat, in my mind. The best example coming directly to my mind is page, although the judges from above are good example too, where page results in an additional 1,031 bytes. | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :::::Yes, it probably is a poor excuse. I tend to use WP to shut off and the emailing process is draining and makes this seem more like work. Again, that is shitty, and I have a bit of time now to help get more of my affairs (online and offline) in order that should help discussion be more easy. But, yes, I probably should have devoted time into making a "work" session to nip this off much earlier in its process. For that, I do apologize and will devote time to cleaning up my talk and giving it more significant attention in the future. (Although I have no idea what IDHT means). | |||
| :*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 ] == | |||
| :::::I'm not claiming any sort of injustice, I'm saying I disagree with your methods, which I found obstructive and overall unhelpful for the above reasons over something that is relatively minor to my mind. I will admit I was quite surprised that this came up because I was under the impression the issue was largely coming to be settled when you decided to launch it. We were finally talking, it seemed like we were narrowing in on the issue, I put my infoboxes back and you put the markers you wanted in. I left my computer shortly after you started putting the markers in because I was waiting for you to reply on your page before, which you did after the marker were put in and then hours later, with no edits in-between on either of our ends, you reported me before I had a chance to see you had responded to me on your page so I could reply, you decided to launch an ANI. The best way I can show this is using your . I would have definitely replied to you the next day but instead we were immediately here. So, yes, I am confused and your imperious "I wasn't joking" doesn't cow me in any way but irk me as petty. Especially as you didn't give me notification that you started the ANI in the first place. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::::I don't see the community as someone who will fix my mistakes and with this all raised I will pay closer attention to the markers. I still don't really see the magnitude of this issue that you seem to see and would appreciate someone explaining it to me further, which I was under the impression we were getting to on your talk before this all started. I honestly probably won't go into an RfC because it's not something I care that passionately about, though I am positive that on some talk page, somewhere, some years ago, I was in a discussion which said "officeholder" was the standard to be used and that's why I've used it. So the policy has definitely changed at some point and is not quite so dire as "thousands of articles which have followed a formula over the course of the last 10 years". ] (]) 20:13, 23 June 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. | |||
| == Problematic behavior by Seattleditor - Probably COI, personal attacks, disruptive editing. == | |||
| :Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. | |||
| ::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.'' | |||
| ::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. | |||
| ::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.'' | |||
| ::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. | |||
| ::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album | |||
| :::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ | |||
| :::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ] ] 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...}} === | |||
| User {{user links|Seattleditor}} has been editing on ] the past few days. Their edits on the ] indicate a conflict of interest and, up until now, they've mostly keep their editing to that talk page. Today, after I edited the page to reduce its SOAPy nature, they began removing maintenance templates from the page. I attempted to engage the user about it (]). They had done similarly in the past () saying it would ] the article subject's customers. After this, the user made on my talk page accusing me {{tq|deliberate malice that requires admin review}} and that {{tq|I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata}}. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I am requesting admin action on this. It appears that either the user is unable to handle their COI or they are NOTHERE. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023 | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021 | |||
| :: agreed, there's a dearth of sources on that article and those that are there are almost all primary sources, Seattleditor is removing the tags indicating that fact, that's not cool at all. <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">] ]</span> 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Moreover, their use of "we" in their post on my user talk page makes me think the COI here is strong. Their post was completely out of line. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === In Response, EvergreenFir Has Misinterpreted Both Intent and Concerns === | |||
| :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 == | |||
| I am a practicing journalist, one who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, who wrote an article about this Dr. for a Seattle area publication. There is no COI on my part. However EvergreenFir has several COIs. First, his only authored page, for a Murray A. Strauss, bios a person who is a rival of the good doctor. Most ironically, the two doctors authored a major research paper together on sex and violence (which contradicts the claim of no secondary sources, the editor's own biographical subject was a collaborator.) I mean no personal animosity or offense but the other apparent COI is in the editor's (EvergreenFir) profile where he has elected to make various statements about his own gender issues. Regardless of personal bias, it is not clear to me how a distinguished position title within an organization can be secondarily sourced. Where such attribution exists, it has been provided (such as to membership rosters on publicly accessible pages.) What is curious is why the editor does not choose to actually edit the text which has gone untouched for a great many months, and instead inject uncertainty and doubt. In fact, I had expressed my misgivings that this could do harm if the patients of this practicing sex therapist found that the same page that had been untouched for so long is suddenly pockmarked with multiple assertions of errata. When I "Talked" about that to EvergreenFir I stated that, for my part, I was open to any edits he may like to provide but I requested he did not make the doctor appear unworthy or uncredentialed in light of the concurrent sensitivities of doctor-patient relationships. I presumed he was okay with that so I removed the template(s) for that reason and that reason alone. Please be advised, I did not author the section on the countless TV and radio appearances made by Dr. Libby which EvergreenFir has since removed. The "We" in my writing simply connotes that Dr. Libby sought my help since he was aware I had helped contribute to the original content. I have no COI whereas EvergreenFir 's COI is well documented. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Roger Libby is America's premiere Sex Therapist. If that is disturbing to this editor, he is welcome to call in a colleague. Oh, he actually did that and the colleague acknowledged that the academic credentials (post-doctoral) being beyond reproach. It seems to this relative neophyte that Misplaced Pages needs a way to make sourcing changes, IF necessary "behind the scenes" and not in a shameful, public way that casts doubt on the credibility or authority of a biography, especially in the cases of practicing health care professionals. ] (]) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} I think you might be a little confused as to how Misplaced Pages works. Writing an article for inclusion in a magazine kind of skirts the line of ]. But more importantly, if negative things about your friend can be reliably sourced, I'm afraid that isn't a violation of policy; see ]. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| ::Can someone please take care of these personal attacks? How does my gender identity have anything to do with this? And if the subject of an article asked you to come and comment on their Misplaced Pages article, that's a ] (whereas writing articles about criminologists is not)... {{U|Seattleditor}} if you are the author of that article, then you are {{U|Searchwriter}} and currently sockpuppeting... ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}} | |||
| *The bio is certainly problematic as it contains just one secondary source, and most of it is unsourced. One solution is to remove anything unsourced and slowly re-build it. {{u|Seattleditor}}, if you're editing with two accounts, please pick one and retire the other (or link them in some way). Also, please don't make personal comments about EvergreenFir. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ip|112.202.57.150}} | |||
| :*There's also an issue with the image, which Seattleeditor added as his own work, but the image is on Libby's website. Unless Seattleeditor took that photograph, it needs a release. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ip|186.154.62.233}} | |||
| ::::*Regarding the image, since it appears on the '''''banner''''' of a copyrighted website, I've requested deletion at Commons unless the uploader can show OTRS either ownership or a license to use the image from the copyright owner. ] (]) 21:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I whittled down the article quite a bit () which was the apparent impetus for the hostility. Quite annoyed at these attacks and ridiculous claims. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Searchwriter started the Libby article at ] on 20 February 2014. The image was uploaded by Seattle24x7 on 21 February 2014, and Seattleeditor says he is Seattle24x7, so the three accounts do seem to be one person. Yes, the attacks need to stop. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Urgent need for page protection on BLP == | |||
| *It seems from a brief look at Seattle24x7 and related websites that this is SEO/marketing. Perhaps it's better handled at COIN in case other articles or accounts are involved. Pinging {{u|Jytdog}} in case he wants to take a look. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::I left ] for SeattleEditor at their talk page. Too long for ANI. I'd ask that folks give him a chance to reply there. Basically I am recommending that SeattleEditor change course or that we indef him per NOTHERE. Let's see what he says. ] (]) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::{{u|Jytdog}}, ditto, thank you. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:13, 18 June 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) | |||
| ===Possibility of paid editing=== | |||
| :Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As noted above, the Roger Libby article began in the sandbox of ], as did the article ], about a Seattle law firm. Both of the articles appear to have been intended to be promotional, and have only been rendered acceptable by stripping out large amounts of information which is unsourced or attributed only to primary sources. | |||
| ::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| The user page for Searchwriter says: <blockquote>'''This is the User Page for the editor of Seattle24x7.com, a Seattle news bureau Website. Thanks for your interest and comments. Everything we contribute to WikiPedia is fully "white-hat," attributed, and well-documented and includes citations.'''</blockquote> | |||
| The account name ] was username blocked in 2010. No edits exist in their contrib list, but their talk page indicates that they wrote an article on a book titled "The High Road Has Less Traffic", which was prodded as being self-published, and subsequently as being non-notable. | |||
| The account ] was created just a few days ago, apparently for the purpose of editing the ] article. On their userpage they acknowledge that their former user name was "Seattle24x7", the name of their "Seattle-based e-zine". An examinination of the shows quite clearly that it's a public-relations outlet: many of the articles are written by the CEOs of the companies they're about. This is clearly '''''not''''' a ], and not even a blog, it is, as its browser tab quite clearly states "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar". | |||
| 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 | |||
| What we have here is, I believe, paid editing on the part of Seattleeditor aka Seattle24x7 and Searchwriter. Seattleeditor is not " a practicing journalist ... who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists", he's a PR guy for hire, who'll do up an article on your law firm or your controversial medical practise, or whatever for his own "e-zine" or for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| , , . | |||
| This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today. | |||
| I suggest that the unblocked accounts be blocked unless they comply with our requirements for paid editors as outlined on ] and ]. That means an admission on their user page, and on article talk page of their conflict of interest and their status as a paid editor. It also means that they cannot directly edit the articles, but must make suggestions on the talk page which other editors can implement if they agree. ] (]) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Incidentally, folks should read Seattleditor's reply to Jytdog on their talk page ] for an example of how '''''not''''' to write in a comprehensible way, how to hide the true nature of one's publication in convoluted and deceptive language, with phrases such as "pro bono" thrown in to make things look better, and how, in particular, not to answer straight-forward questions in a straight-forward manner. ] (]) 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| ::Three other items: | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*A picture of Dr. Libby was previously uploaded on en.wiki by user Searchwriter, and deleted for permission problems. Admins can look and see if ] is the same image that's currently in the article, which I have requested deletion of on Commons for the same reason. | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| ::*There's no doubt that the three accounts are the same person. After ] was username blocked, ] refrerred to it as his previous account. On the talk page of ] the editor reveals his real world name, and on the "Seattle24x7" website, the person of that name is described as "founder, publisher and managing editor of Seattle24x7, the founder of SearchWrite Search Marketing, an SEO, PPC and Social Media Thought Leader, and an SPJ award winner for Seattle magazine." This accords with the information in Seattleditor's response to Jytdog;s inquiry, and also reinforces the suspicion that SEO/promotion is what's going on here -- i.e. paid editing. | |||
| :::@] 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) | |||
| ::*Seattleditor's response on the Commons deletion request is informative. | |||
| ::::{{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) | |||
| ::(Incidentally, my understanding is that my second item is '''''not''''' ] because the user revealed the information on their talk page. If an admin feels it oversteps the bounds, please delete the item.) ] (]) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (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) | |||
| :::{{u|Beyond My Ken|BMK}} FYI, in my iterations of my note to SeattleEditor I included their name in a quote from the "about the author" section of the seattle24x7 profile of Libby, and later . I emailed oversight and asked them to oversight the pre-redaction versions. They declined, saying it was not a violation of OUTING. So we are OK on using his RW name. ] (]) 00:35, 20 June 2015 (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) | |||
| ::::Thanks for that info. ] (]) 04:34, 20 June 2015 (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 == | |||
| ===Propose indef per ]=== | |||
| {{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| So SeattleEditor's was not what any of us wanted. They are NOTHERE and appear to be dug in so far that there is <u>no</u> teaching them how to be HERE at this time. ] (]) 00:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (add missing "no" ] (]) 04:56, 19 June 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 01:27, 19 June 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' per their response to Jytdog and to me. I asked two simple yes/no questions and got more evasive, combative, non-responsive verbal spew. We don't have the time or energy to waste on this gaming of the system. — ] (]) 04:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I support sanctions against ]. I wish there was a ] essay, but I'll just have to be left with citing ] (in reference to comments aimed at EGF). (Oh, and is ] even allowed as an argument against an editor's comments? Well, then, that, too.) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :In addition to NOTHERE cited in the title, for the record I also agree that there is a violation of ] here that rises to ]. I was hoping for {{ping|Jytdog}}'s promised ] post before weighing in, but the original <nowiki>{{long}}</nowiki> comment is incorporated by reference to the reply to it, above. | |||
| :I also agree that there may be a ] issue here (I'd hope EGF will file a ] if appropriate). I'm not really sure which is worse, COI or SOCK, I feel they are both duplicitous. —] (]) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Since Jimbo probably wouldn't approve, I'll refrain from suggesting an alternate title for an essay on how to respond to such contributors... ] (]) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Holding note'''. There is consensus for an indef block per ]. Unless something else eventuates, I intend to place that block after the AfD discussion mentioned below has been decided; Seattleditor should preferably have a chance to comment in the AfD. Please feel free to continue discussing Jytdog's block proposal in this section while we wait. ] | ] 22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :*So where do we stand now? I'm still very offended by the editor above referring to EGF in the masculine. I do look at that before using these pronouns. EGF hasn't declared a preferred pronoun, but has declared GQ. So, no more pronouns there for me. I disagree to a large extent to what EGF has said on the talk pages of the ] article, but not to the extent of actually going to battle about it. This editor may yet convince me that they are right and I am wrong. I'm willing to listen. (And not willing to contribute to the article to that extent; I admit ignorance.) | |||
| ::So what now? How do we move forward with a sanction against ]? | |||
| ::What I say is to follow P&P (Policy and procedure), cite COI, NPOV violations, SPA and potentially SP (sock puppeting). With these accusations against Seattleditor how can ] prevail as an alternative narrative (it's OK to blow-hole against editors here, really?)? Impose a sanction, I'm not really clear which sanction is appropriate, but let it be clear that esteemed editors (regardless of our disagreement with them) are not to be attacked with pomposity, and not facts. This does not, and shall not, intimidate us. | |||
| ::Understand, those listening in, that as my understanding goes, that this ANI was originally filed based on this: ]. I think I just coughed up a lung. | |||
| ::We're all still waiting for Seattleditor to have EGF "disbarred" here. —] (]) 06:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:NoahBWill2002 == | |||
| ===] now on AfD=== | |||
| {{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''Literally'' all the sources of the article are primary sources, in the sense of being publications by Dr Libby himself — not "nearly" all, a phrase used above I suppose in honour of the current note 13. That footnote appears to cite a different author, Murray A. Straus, which may mislead the unwary, but it actually references a 1978 anthology which contains an article by Libby; i. e., that too is a primary source. Or not a source so much; it's a publication, an article, which appears in the list of Libby's publications. So, no secondary sources, and none have been offered since Evergreen Fir tagged the article three weeks ago. On the contrary, ], a ], has attempted to remove the tags protesting that they're "damaging to the credibility of the doctor" and "deleterious to the patients of the doctor". (That edit was made by an IP, clearly ] logged out accidentally, not attempting in any way to hide.) All this suggests to me that ] shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. We don't do self-sourced bios, because they can't show notability. I've ]. Seattleditor's understanding of policy does appear to be poor, and the way they answer questions quite evasive, but perhaps we might as well put off the issue of a block until the AfD is done, so that they can take part in it. ] | ] 07:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC). | |||
| *{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}} | |||
| It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br> | |||
| (As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br> | |||
| I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Vandal encounter == | |||
| *], I thank you for your wise intervention. | |||
| :There is a point that I wish to clarify for those listening in: "], a ]" is not a reference to the Dr. Libby article. Instead, the SPA accusation, is I feel, accurate, on the basis that the user advocates for articles written at Seattle24x7. Dr. Libby's article there happens to be among those (as has been proven by others, above). The "single purpose" here, is about Seattle24x7, a PR news site (as another user put it, "CEO porn"), not about Dr. Libby himself. —] (]) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back. | |||
| * just fyi - i received an email from a person saying he was Roger Libby. Not happy about the tags on the article and among other things wrote: "In (sic - meant "if" i believe) my many publications, academic and professional credentials and references (including the links to professional associations which are publicly accessible online) are not sufficient, I would ask you to immediately remove the page entirely as it calls into question my professional standing given your editorial staff's lack of certainty in my credentials. Under the circumstances, I consider the "public editing" of the page to be damaging to my professional sex therapy practice and my reputation. Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation. It appears that on Misplaced Pages everyone is guilty until proven innocent." I'll also make a note of this on the AfD. I replied nicely and fwded to wmf legal. ] (]) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you {{re|Jytdog}}! ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 18:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Good thing Libby isn't an editor here, since "Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation" is a not-so-veiled legal threat. (One that I hope he doesn't go through with, since all he'll do is throw away a lot of money, as there is obviously no "defamation" in determining that he doesn't qualify under our notablity guidelines.) Perhaps Libby will think twice next time before engaging a SEO/PR person who doesn't understand Misplaced Pages -- and if he could tell his professional friends that as well, all the better for us. There are a hell of a lot of doctors in the English-speaking world, but only a very tiny percentage of them qualify for a having a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| == Antifeminism == | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've been trying to improve the ] article, because I think the current one is very bad for many reasons (it's very biased in tone, it doesn't accurately reflect its sources, and it's sloppy in general). There has been a huge resistance to this from a few editors though, who clearly want to leave the article in its current state, are unwilling to work cooperatively, and instead dismiss all criticism I have of it as original research, which lacks sources. Now I've tried to explain to them repeatedly that I disagree with this, because the criticism I had was criticism of the article, not of which information it should contain, or which sources it should use. They completely ignore this though, and instead keep repeating the same thing over and over again. | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| Now I've been trying to assume good faith, and kept assuming that they were misreading what I wrote, but it's getting so weird that it's becoming really difficult to maintain this. See this thread ], and especially {{user links|Fyddlestix}} second reply. The section was about something I removed, because it was unsourced, but which got reverted back. I tried to discuss this, and explain why it wasn't supported by the sources, but instead they went on pretending that I was trying to ''add'' information, which wasn't supported by sources. There's just no way that such a reply can be made in good faith to the what I wrote above it. It's becoming clear enough that they're just intentionally being impossible, probably either to frustrate me to a point where I would give up, or provoke me into questioning their intelligence, so that they can block me over personal attacks.] (]) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places == | |||
| :This appears to be basically a content dispute, although it may be complicated by stubbornness and incivility. I suggest that you ask for ]. A mediator may be able to get the parties to explain and work on their differences. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, then the next step for dealing with conduct issues would be ] under the gender-related sanctions under ]. But I suggest that mediation be tried. ] (]) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s. | |||
| ::I see this less as a content dispute and more as a problem of disruptive editing on Diadaev's part. This user has been lobbying for changes to the article on ] for a couple of weeks, but their talk page posts are based on their own subjective opinions & reasoning, rather than on RS ( is probably the worst example). They've been prodded for sources and asked to stop making subjective arguments several times, and they've been given a for failure to cite sources and disruptive editing. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::In the comment Didaev refers to above, I was simply trying to impress upon them the importance of citing sources - I was hoping that engaging with some sources might refocus the conversation and make it less subjective. But Diadev has chosen to raise the matter here rather than do that. So I don't see how mediation is going to help unless Didaev is willing to make some sourced, non-subjective arguments. ] (]) 22:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::On the one hand, a mediator would insist on citing sources. On the other hand, if ] is ignoring advice to cite sources, then that may be good-faith editing that is nonetheless disruptive editing. If this is seen as a conduct dispute, it is my experience that ] works more efficiently than this noticeboard. Has Didaev been notified of gender-related discretionary sanctions? ] (]) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| ::::Good point, it looks like they hadn't been warned about the DS. just now. ] (]) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — ] ] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places? | |||
| ::::Surely Didaev is editing in good faith, but unfortunately is ''still'' not getting the point about how all of our work on the article must be based on the summarization of reliable sources. Didaev is offering criticisms of the article which are personal criticisms. This is not helping the situation at all. What is needed is for Didaev to refer to reliable published sources when making arguments about what to change in the antifeminism article. Until that happens there's not much influence that Didaev can have on the article. Lacking any leverage based on what is found in the literature, the talk page complaints by Didaev are ultimately disruptive. ] (]) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems to me that the 'reliable source' doctrine is being abused here to skew the page towards a particular point of view. On the original discussion page, Binksternet ''et. al.'' have explicitly stated their belief that the only valid sources of information about "antifeminism" are feminist scholars. This must lead to a one-sided characterization. ] (]) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I'm not sure that's a fair characterization - as far as I've seen, no one has argued that feminist scholars are "the only valid sources of information" about anti-feminism. Rather, they've argued that there just ''isn't'' all that much (or any) academic literature about antifeminism itself that takes a "pro" antifeminist perspective. ] (]) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==TPA for 83.106.86.95== | |||
| *Didaev is a new user and an 100% ] — they've edited only ] and its talkpage. It does look like they've come here to ], and I will consider a topic ban if they should persist with their agenda to the point of disrupting the talkpage. However, there's no need for anything like that yet, as they haven't edited since receiving the discretionary sanctions alert. Perhaps they're thinking about it and will return more willing to listen to experienced editors. Well, see the ], I suppose, but it never hurts to assume the best, especially of new users. ] | ] 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC). | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|83.106.86.95}} | |||
| Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Onel5969 misuse of rollback == | |||
| :Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Diff: {{diff2|667479139|07:08, 18 June 2015 '''(-1,383)'''}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Can you please help? == | |||
| {{userlinks|Onel5969}} reverted twelve consecutive edits of a fellow editor with an edit summary "Rev npov edits which go against consensus on talk pag", please see {{diff2|667479139|diff}}. The edits were reverted from an actively discussed and edited, contentious article, ]. The article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions including ] and the ] ({{diff2|667116063|ds alerts}}). The edits rolled back included: | |||
| ] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly. | |||
| :@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? – ] (]) (]) 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. – ] (]) (]) 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 == | |||
| # {{diff2|667448008|00:21, 18 June 2015 }} "- unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status; lede summarizes notability of subject; legal details for body, thanks", an edit intended to trim a recent undiscussed addition to the lede | |||
| {{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| # {{diff2|667448868|00:33, 18 June 2015}}, a neutral, minor copy edit | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| # {{diff2|667449615|00:44, 18 June 2015}} "add rs ref", a neutral edit to add a high quality reliable source (no new content) reference to unsourced content as per ] | |||
| :Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| # {{diff2|667450090|00:52, 18 June 2015}} "fix ref, name ref", a neutral edit to add a publisher and magazine name to a reliable source reference (no new content) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| # {{diff2|667450201|00:53, 18 June 2015}} "add rs ref", an edit to add a second, high quality reliable source reference to contended content (no new content) | |||
| # {{diff2|667450739|00:53, 18 June 2015}} "a very few words of brief description in text for clarity, drawn from lede of target wl, as per ]", a neutral edit, word-for-word from the very lede sentence of our article | |||
| # {{diff2|667451506|01:14, 18 June 2015}} "brief description in text for clarity, drawn from reliable source, as per ]", a neutral edit which provides the only context for two highly significant actors in the article | |||
| # {{diff2|667452577|01:28, 18 June 2015}} "add noteworthiness of 2010 funding source", a neutral edit, a paraphrase of a highly reliable source '']'', which adds a statement of the noteworthiness of contented content, and adds the relevant excerpt from the reliable source to the reference | |||
| # {{diff2|667452895|01:32, 18 June 2015}} "+ wl, + highly significant subject of the sentence as stated in reliable source" a neutral edit which adds a wikilink to a highly significant actor in this article on first mention, and paraphrases the highly reliable and noteworthy source '']'' more neutrally and accurately by restoring the highly significant subject of the sentence from the source recently deleted without discussion | |||
| # {{diff2|667453010|01:34, 18 June 2015 }} "ce, nation -> US", a neutral copy edit, word choice | |||
| # {{diff2|667453632|01:43, 18 June 2015}} "add excerpt from reliable source to reference", an edit which adds a brief, highly relevant excerpt from a highly reliable and noteworthy source '']'' in support of a contended content | |||
| # {{diff2|667453906|01:48, 18 June 2015}} "move content to relevant subsection" a neutral edit which moves content to the appropriate subsection, no new content | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| Our behavioral guideline ] restricts rollback to certain specific applications. Clearly, at least some of these edits are ] edits which cannot reasonably be construed as part of any neutrality dispute. Our policy ] recommends steps to be taken before deleting the contributions of a fellow editor. Our essay ] recommends against deleting content with an edit summary of "no consensus." Thank you for your attention to this. ] (]) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I see some undoing of edits, but that was not with the rollback tool but with Twinkle rollback. I just thought I'd point that out in case of confusion. ] ] 16:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, Twinkle rollback. Thank you. ] (]) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No misuse of rollback. From the same guideline: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." If proper edit summaries were added, using rollback is accepted. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::"If proper edit summaries were added, using rollback is accepted." The edit summary is improper. The edit summary mentioned NPOV and "no consensus." The edit reverted 12 edits of a fellow editor, most of which are clearly good faith edits that could not reasonably be understood as non-neutral or contrary to talk page consensus, see comments above. This rollback was reverting an editor, not edits ], and feels very much like an attempt to reduce an editor's enjoyment of Misplaced Pages ]. ] (]) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. Onel5969 did not think your edits improved the article so he reverted them. You did not like that so you dragged him here, hoping to disguise a content dispute as a conduct issue. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually, the sequence of edits is another attempt by {{ul|HughD}} to assert his non-neutral POV on the article. His edits were in direct contradiction of the consensus on the talk page of the article. This editor has also ] on ] to assist in promoting his POV. This editor has also been counseled in the past about his contentious editing on this page. While some of his edits are valid, his consistent incessant editing makes it impossible to "undo" the edits which are contrary to the talkpage consensus, however in this instance, each of his sequence of edits was in direct contradiction of that consensus, so therefore is not a violation of the rollback privilege. The other editors involved in the consensus were {{ul|DaltonCastle}}, {{ul|Capitalismojo}}, and {{ul|Champaign Supernova}}, and (just recently) {{ul|Comatmebro}}. I have asked HughD to refrain from editing the article until consensus was reached, and while I feel it has been reached, I was waiting for more comments from other editors in order to achieve a broader consensus. HughD has been asked several times to wait for consensus, and in spite of the current consensus being against his edits, he made the unilateral decision to edit adversely to the current consensus. This editor, I just realized is just back from a ban on editing from a similar incident on this talk page, and has been banned several times in the last 3 months for similar behavior. It is very wearying and time-consuming dealing with editors like this. Not sure what to do with him at this point. But thank you {{ul|Dustin V. S.}} and {{ul|NeilN}} for your above comments. ] (]) 17:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::"in this instance, each of his sequence of edits was in direct contradiction of that consensus" Please document your claim by provide links, for all of the above edits, to the specific talk page discussion where a specific concensus against each of the above edits is reached. Thank you. ] (]) 16:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a ] situation. Hugh has been consistently editing against a clear talk page consensus, and is continually re-inserting his preferred content despite the fact that no other editors have expressed agreement with these edits. He appears to be engaged in ] and since he cannot build a ] for his preferred edits, he is resorting to filing merit-less incident reports. The community is growing tired of these disruptive antics. ] (]) 19:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. Hugh, this is getting old. We see your pattern: ignore community consensus, accuse accuse report, repeat. You dont come out of this looking like a victim. ] (]) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The fact that HughD has posted "discretionary sanction" warnings like without any followup or intention of pursuing them is both ] and ]. Opening this thread, which has so little merit, adds ] and ] to the mix. When {{u|Onel5969}} of this thread HughD directed O to AN rather than ANI. I hope that was just a mistake but it does add to the issues that make a ] something to be considered. ]|] 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{replyto|MarnetteD}} Hello MarnetteD, any editor may alert fellow editors to discretionary sanctions, please see ]. Thank you. ] (]) 19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm going to suggest we close this here as no action with regard to Onel5969. Instead of deciding on a boomerang for HughD here, we can just close it without prejudice to anyone filling an ] request, (or and admin directly invoking discretionary sanctions if they are so inclined) as that seems like a superior venue for dealing with this sort of thing. ]] 00:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Excuse me, {{ul|Monty845}}, but the ] thing... is that something I should do? Or is someone else going to do it? Bit new to this ANI thing, so I'm unclear. Sorry to bother you. ] (]) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd wait to see the outcome here first, as you don't want anyone to suggest your venue shopping. If my approach was taken, its something you could do if you think its necessary. We could also just discuss it fully here, but I'd prefer we pass it to AE, as the regulars there are often better at dealing with this sort of behavior. ]] 01:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks {{ul|Monty845}} - As I said, I'm not real familiar with this venue, so wasn't sure how this is "closed", or if I needed to bring the matter to AE. I've only been involved in two "incidents" (both coincidently in the last 2 days), and in the other one the nominating editor was blocked for a year for their nonsense. I'm guessing there will be some decision by which I know this discussion has reached an outcome. ] (]) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Hi admins! Hope all is well. I was just wondering if this discussion is over? It's been a few days, and I wanted to un-watchlist this page, since there's a lot of activity here. Thanks. ] (]) 20:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption. | |||
| Diff: {{diff2|667565454|19:14, 18 June 2015 '''(-2,758)'''}} | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| Hours later, {{userlinks|Onel5969}} rolled back 10 consecutive talk page edits from ], reverting the talk page to a previous edit of his. The reverted edits included 8 talk page contributions of a fellow editor. The talk page involved is that of an actively discussed and edited, contentious article, ]. The edits rolled back included project additions and talk page comments: | |||
| # {{diff2|667559759|18:17, 18 June 2015}} "+ project as project member" | |||
| # {{diff2|667559901|18:19, 18 June 2015}} "+ project as project member" | |||
| # {{diff2|667560372|18:22, 18 June 2015}} "request focus" | |||
| # {{diff2|667560681|18:25, 18 June 2015}} "request focus on topics appropriate for article talk page" | |||
| # {{diff2|667561298|18:30, 18 June 2015}} "responding to nonsense", a self-revert | |||
| # {{diff2|667561757|18:34, 18 June 2015}} "responding to nonsense", a self-revert | |||
| # {{diff2|667562027|18:37, 18 June 2015}} a request for focus on content | |||
| # {{diff2|667563452|18:52, 18 June 2015}} contribution to talk page thread | |||
| # {{diff2|667563822|18:56, 18 June 2015}} "request focus on discussion appropriate for an article talk page" | |||
| # {{diff2|667565454|19:14, 18 June 2015}} rollback | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this. ] (]) 02:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| : HughD is absolutely correct on this last issue, when I attempted to revert his non-neutral edits, I clicked "restore this version", not "rollback", which not only reverted his incorrect edits, but also included valid edits by both him and other edits. Since he has incessant edits, I accidently pulled other edits in my reversion. I have corrected. ] (]) 03:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides. | |||
| #* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments. | |||
| #* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus. | |||
| # '''Ongoing Disruption:''' | |||
| #* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors. | |||
| #* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context). | |||
| # '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:''' | |||
| #* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict. | |||
| #* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision. | |||
| # '''Impact on the Community:''' | |||
| #* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement. | |||
| #* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic. | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action:''' | |||
| == Unacceptable behavior of editor == | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| Hello, | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| I want to inform you about unacceptable behavior of the editor Croata concerning the articles Bulgars/ Dulo clan. | |||
| # 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. | |||
| During the past 3 months (since the beginning of March 2015) he was constantly removing all my edits on these articles stating that they were "vandalism", "unrelated info", "false positive edits", "fringe theories edits" or simply calling them POV. He denies the reliability of obviously excellent sources as ] and ] stating that they represent minority point of view. For example on 19 June 2015 he removed my edit on the article Bulgars where I have added information about the origin of Utigurs, a major Bulgar tribe, stating that the edit is "false positive" and "unrelated info". On 6 June 2015 I have warned him that in his version of the article Dulo clan, his conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is not supported by the cited four books - nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conclusion. He ignored my warning and reverted the article 6 times after that without bothering to correct this sentence or to remove it. On the talk page of Dulo clan article I have suggested many ways how to improve the article, for example : | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.'' | |||
| ::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources == | |||
| * I have suggested to move the information about the historical rulers of the clan from the section "Research History" to the article's intro where this information should be placed because it is well documented | |||
| {{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| * I have suggested to removed the information that early rulers of the clan were claiming Attilid descend from the article's intro to "Research History" or to restate it in the form that some historians think they had such a descend. It is not known if they were claiming this. | |||
| * I have suggested to improve the article Bulgars by replacing the very first sentence "... semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction" with more accurate statement " The three major tribes were Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, whose origin is still unidentified" | |||
| Hello, | |||
| None of these suggestions (and many more) were accepted. The editor Croata doesn't accept any independent additions, he considers his versions of the articles to be final and set in stone. Also he tends to place disproportionate importance of the Turkic theory about the origin of Bulgars and Dulo clan and doesn't accept other theories about their origin to be added to the articles. Such a behavior is unacceptable and it does not help the readers of these articles. | |||
| 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: | |||
| ] (]) 01:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''1. Misapplication of Policy''': | |||
| *I've reformatted. You didn't notify Crovata, and misspelled his name. The very top of this page clearly states you must do this. I have gone ahead and done so. Now to look at the merits.... ] - ] 02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *This is going to take longer than I have to give tonight, but the other stuff still needed doing. ] is familiar with Crovata, so I would draw his attention here. Looking briefly, it seems more of a content dispute, but there may be some behavioral issues by one or both, so I will leave to B and others to determine. ] - ] 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*No promises, but I'll try to look at this tomorrow.--] (]) 04:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ]. | |||
| I experience technical problems and don't know if will manage to actively follow the discussion. However, I neither have time to waste discussing the same thing over and over and over again. The violation of ] principles, lack of neutrality and knowledge of the editor PavelStaykov, and in general about the topic and dispute, you can read at his ], Bulgars ] and Dulo clan ]. The scholars Zuev and Pulleyblank were only lately introduced, not months ago, and their minor claims have no relation to Bulgars. It is related with Utigurs and their article. The Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were not Bulgar tribes, they were different tribes who in periods were part of Bulgar confederation, but whose names etymologically clearly show Turkic origin. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs areas badly written, and currently work on them. He never answered which "four books", and I ask him again to respond. A simple read of the Bulgars article is enough to dismiss his claims, and often personal original research (which he calls "independent"). The Turkic theory is the only theory with verified evidence, and weight per NPOV. It is generally considered and discussed, and does not dismiss other ethnogenetic and cultural influence like other theories, Indo-European or Iranian, which do not have substantial amount of sources, reliability or confirmation for such claims. Not to mention how are ideologically motivated by the Bulgarian scholars during the anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria, considered by unreliable "scholars" (PavelStaykov cited a scholar who is not educated in the historiography or linguistics, but medicine) and a minority. Such a fringe theory also has an article - ]. | |||
| '''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''': | |||
| The editor PavelStaykov denies and called modern scholarship considerations as ''junk'' and part of "some Russian propaganda". As far the points go, 1. The list of rulers follows the list of the '']'' and their names and meaning are discussed in the section 2. There is no need for this, and just for record, previously in March and April he strongly opposed the reshaping of the statement as personally considered it was Attila itself and denied scholars general consideration 3. It is generally accepted they were most prominently of Turkic extraction (with some admixture of Hunnic, Iranian and other Indo-European origin and influence).--] (]) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not going to get embroiled in a content dispute about which I know next to nothing. Even if I did, the only issue here for me is conduct. I've blocked ] twice for edit-warring at ], the first time for 48 hours and the second for one week. When I blocked him the second time, I also warned ] about his conduct. There's been no reverts at that article since June 11. There has been one addition (I assume it's brand new but didn't check) at ] by PavelStaykov and one revert by Crovata on June 19. The two editors have to use some sort of ] to resolve their content issues. As for their conduct, if I see either editor revert at either article, that editor risks being blocked, and a revert back after a block may also be met with a block. Both of them should stay away from both articles.--] (]) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Bbb23}} The problem with the whole issue is that there's no constructive content dispute for Misplaced Pages, yet the fringe theories and personal POV/OR which are forced to be included in the articles which have nothing to do with - the violation of NPOV. I advise all involved to read all three linked talk pages to understand the situation. I cannot agree with the last statement, why someone who defended the articles from unconstructive edits, and rewrote the articles according modern scholarship, must stay away? Since 14 May personally rewrote the Bulgars article and done major constructive edits, and as currently is in the process of GOCE review for GAN review, and there few cites additionally for inclusion, it seeks if not edit activity at least my attention.--] (]) 16:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***If it's as clear-cut as you state, then the dispute resolution should be straightforward. In the interim, my warning stands.--] (]) 16:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{ping|Bbb23}} Sincerely, I simply do not know which of the claims, articles and talk pages above should take for dispute resolution. They all were answered here, talk pages time ago, and there probably even more he seeks for. I need your advice, and personal inclusion of PavelStaykov for dispute resolution as he began those disputes. He needs to decide what claims should be brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't want any kind of disapproval from his side if missed to mention some of his claims we dispute. {{ping|PavelStaykov}} Respond.--] (]) 17:09, 20 June 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. | |||
| First, I want to answer Crovata's accusation that I have "aversion for the term "Turks"" - this is not true. I am not obliged to share such personal information here, but I will do it. I grew up in small town in southern Bulgaria ( Haskovo ) which is of mixed population - Bulgarians and Turks. One of my best friends during my childhood was a Turk. I live in Sofia now and one of my friends is also Turk, and I value his friendship more than that of many of my Bulgarian friends. So, I don't have "aversion for the term "Turks", nor I have aversion for Turkic people or their culture. What I want is simply these 2 articles to be written in the best possible way. Also before I start the discussion, I want to make some general remarks. It is a common misbelief that Bulgars are extinct, or that they merged with Slavic people 7-10 centuries AD thus forming contemporary Bulgarians. This is not true. Even now three type of faces can clearly be seen on the streets of Bulgaria, all of them of obvious Indo-European origin, but definitely distinct. It is especially striking if someone comes from abroad. The approximate ratio is 1:1:1. I can take photos and upload them to the Bulgar's article. My explanation is that the proposed by scholars merging of Bulgars, Slavs and Thracian's continues even today - after all Bulgaria was a rural country up to 1950-1960 and marriages happened inside small rural communities. One of my friends took genetic tests and he was told that he is of Thracian origin. Personally I don't need to do this to know that I am of Slavic origin - it's enough to look at myself in the mirror. | |||
| '''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''': | |||
| About the article Bulgars. 1. The very first sentence in its current version states that Bulgars were "tribes of Turkic extraction". This is not known for sure - may be they were, may be not. What is known for sure is that they were nomads. If they were Turks, of Turkic extraction, Iranian, or Indo-European tribes influenced by Turkic and Iranian people is still debated among scholars. Using euphemistic phrases as "Turkic extraction" is not a constructive edit, it is an obfuscation of the truth. It is much better to state that their origin is still unidentified and to enumerate different Bulgar tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and so on. Crovata's opinion that these tribes were not Bulgars is ridiculous - just type these words in Google and read. Not to mention numerous books and textbooks where this is explained. | |||
| Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.] | |||
| 2. My second point is to state in the article intro that some of the Bulgar tribes participated in the union of the Huns - this is well documented. Most Roman, Greeks and Byzantines sources used the words Huns and Bulgars indiscriminately to describe the same people. Actually many scholars equate Bulgars and the (European) Huns. This can be done in the 3rd sentence of the article. This will help the reader to understand better the origin of the Bulgars. Stating that they envelop " other ethnic groups and cultural influences, such as Hunnic..." is not accurate. Huns were not ethnic group, they were conglomeration of different tribes, many of them Bulgars. | |||
| '''Evidence''': | |||
| 3. In the section "Etymology and origin" I want to include the identification made by ] and ] that Utigurs were ] tribe. Both scholars are renowned and the identification is undisputable. Also it is a base for research among many modern Bulgarian scholars as Pr. A. Stamatov, Dr. P. Tsvetkov, Dr. G. Voinikov and others. | |||
| 4. Section "History" - the subtitle is Turkic migration. This is misleading and I would suggest to be removed. If Crovata is making such implications, probably he could explain exactly which Turkic tribes practiced artificial cranial deformation? "Further information: Turkic migration and Huns" - this is OK. The second sentence is controversial. What would mean "Interaction with the Hunnic tribes, causing the migration..." if the Bulgars were Huns themselves, to interact with whom? Also the cited source is not available online. | |||
| 5. Section " History", cited source 40c, pages 127-128 - does not contain such information. Which line ? | |||
| 6. Section ethnicity, the 3rd paragraph - it starts with "When the Turkic tribes began to enter into the Pontic–Caspian steppe...as early as the 2nd century AD" is also misleading. It is generally considered that Turkic migration started much later and that the tribes in question are of unknown origin, they spoke language similar to proto - Turkic. May be here we could include the explanation given by Zuev that these tribes were actually Wusuns? | |||
| ] | |||
| 7. Section " Anthropology and Genetics" emphasizes too much on the origin of the Turks - paragraphs 2 and 3. What is the point here ? This article is not about the origin of the Turks. | |||
| 8. Bulgars practiced Artificial Cranial Deformation and this is stated in the article, but I think the discussion here could be extended, it is well known that European Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation and they can be traced (using this) to North China. | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action''': | |||
| 9. I want to include research paper (by Voinikov) that modern Bulgarian language contains a lot of Tocharian words. It is published in Bulgarian language but with Google translate it can be read by everyone. | |||
| 1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification. | |||
| ] (]) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, it may be taken into account that through IP 93.152.143.113 wrote the same person as the one through PavelStaykov. The info in the intro about personal life (and previously where allegedly confirmed that Pavel Staykov is the personal name, and by education physicist) is useless and irrelevant for the whole discussion. The all 9 points were already discussed, and properly dismissed as are against the general scholarship(!), actually any relevant scholar consideration. This points are based on extreme and specially chosed sources and very minor considerations. They just confirm the lack of knowledge, will to understand, and disregard of general scholarship and evidence. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs are currently being rewrote by me and his deny of their separate identity (which is something generally accepted!) is incredibly delusional and further discreditable. That's typical example of original research and personal POV violating NPOV. Even worse, he claims two different things, that the Utigurs point 1. were a Bulgar tribe, while in point 3. were a Yuezhi tribe. He doen't have basic knowledge about the Utigurs and Kutrigurs and how they existed in the vicinity of the Bulgars simultaneously, and participated in the battles and politics of Eastern Roman Empire. The Bulgars were not Huns, they were not equated at all, yet the name "Hun" became a general term or exonym for nomadic intruders from the East. This consideration, also in the point 4, is so wrong it's just ridiculous that it needs to be discussed. The scholar Dr. G. Voinikov revolutionary considerations (and the fringe Indo-European-Yuezhi theory) were not cited by any prominent scholar because he is an independent amateur scholar who is not at all educated in the field of linguistics or history - he finished medicine. No strange that no academic scholar cites his research. The personal POV and OR is based upon two reliable scholars (but whose considerations have nothing to do with Bulgars, but Utigurs, and claiming that the "identification is undisputable" is something generally not accepted!) and unreliable scholars. Replying to all the points for the XY time would be too long and waste of my time. {{ping|Dennis Brown}}{{ping|Bbb23}} Please give me advice how to properly write the dispute resolution, and for ever to end this unconstructive discussion. Should I cite every claim word by word? This 9 points deal with the article of the Bulgars, but not of the Dulo clan (where most of his activity was involved, and first comment dealt with).--] (]) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply|Crovata}} I didn't read the wall of text by the other party. I would forget about what the other user says. Their part in the dispute resolution is to set forth their own reasons for the content of the two articles. You, @Crovata, should decide what you disagree with (not set forth here) but what you disagree with in the two articles and explain why. {{ping|PavelStaykov}} It is ''not'' a good idea to edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages without logging in to your account.--] (]) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 , -) 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. | |||
| Bulgars were Huns, and Crovata knows this very well. Almost all serious historians accept this: | |||
| Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed. | |||
| 1. SANPING CHEN : | |||
| ----Best Regards | |||
| "In fact '''contemporary European sources''' kept '''equating the Bulgars''' with the '''Huns'''" - page 8, line 1 <ref>Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf</ref> | |||
| --- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 2. ], The world of the Huns : | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| Cassiodorus, writing his Gothic historv in the 520’s or early 530’s, and Ennodius (t 521) '''repeatedly calls the Bulgarians “Huns.”''' - page 164 | |||
| == Nothing to say about me really bot == | |||
| Provided that what Ennodius said about the Bulgars, whom he '''equated | |||
| {{atop | |||
| with the Huns'''... page 199 | |||
| | 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}} | |||
| Jordanes’ '''Bulgars''' and '''Huns''' in this chapter of the Getica are but '''two names of the same people'''. Schirren thought that Jordanes simply followed Cassiodorus, who in Varia VIII, 10, 4, likewise '''identified the Bulgars with the Huns.''' - page 432, line 5 | |||
| 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) | |||
| 3. ] in his book " A history of the First Bulgarian Empire" <ref>http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/sr_1_1.htm</ref> repeatedly identifies Bulgars as Huns. The first part of the book is named '''The children of the Huns''': | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| '''the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans''', '''diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs.''' page 4, last line | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| On '''Attila'''’s death, his empire crumbled. '''His people''', who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. '''One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars.''' page 5 | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''the Bulgar branch of the Huns''' - page 7 line 4 | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| '''The Bulgars, we know, were Huns''' ... - page 12, line 7 | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| '''the Imperial writers use their name, the Huns’, and the Bulgars’''' '''indiscriminately to describe the same race.''' - page 15, line 16 | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| and so on. Bulgars and Huns were the same people - that's why many historian use the term Hunno-Bulgars. I don't know what game is playing Crovata, but it is not serving the main purpose of every Encyclopedia - to tell the readers the truth. His next "invention" about Utigurs and Kutrigurs - every serious book states that they were Bulgar tribes: | |||
| :"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. | |||
| Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe <ref>https://books.google.bg/books?id=fX8YAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=Kutrigurs+Utigurs&source=bl&ots=dSdCluNu37&sig=fJL69CRzXwYpjvvEcZ6kJuM8ioY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6dA-VdaHAYTcavWagIAB&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Kutrigurs%20Utigurs&f=false</ref> | |||
| :Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet. | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ] ] 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. | |||
| ::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed). | |||
| :::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly: | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| ::::and many more | |||
| ::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please check! ]] 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 ], 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) | |||
| :::::::::::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) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| *::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| '''the Utigur wing of the Bulgar Huns''' - page 253, cit. 28 | |||
| {{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. | |||
| '''Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the''' '''Bulgars''' - page 141, line 6 | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| ] : | |||
| : ''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'': | |||
| '''it is impossible not to see in the Bulgars of''' '''Theophanes the bulk of the old Utigur people''' - page 15, line 13 | |||
| {{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''. | |||
| Already in 1772 (Allgem. Nord. Geschichte, 358), the German historian August Schloetzer identified the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs with Bulgars, on the basis of the information provided by Greek-language late antiquity chronicles (Procopius, Agathias of Mirena, Menander, Theophylact Simocatta). Procopius of Ceasarea points out that Utigurs and Kutrigurs attacked the Goths during the fourth century. | |||
| 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.() | |||
| The whole story is simple. Approximately around 2000 BC, a second wave of Indo-Europeans appear in North China. They were practicing artificial cranial deformation - the first graves with artificially deformed skulls in Tarim Basin (in North China) are from around 2000 BC. These people later were called by Chinese ] and ]. With the rise of ](Mongol-Turkic Huns) Yuezhi lost several wars against Xiongnu (between 210-160 BC - very well documented by Chinese) and move into modern day Kazahstan, around the Aral sea, in the interfluvial of Syr-Darya - Amu-Darya. Part of Wusuns stay and part of them move with Yuezhi, they were the same people after all, although they often warred between. That part of Wusuns who stayed gave rise to Ashina Turks, as Y. Zuev always pointed out - Ashina clan originated from Wusuns,<ref>http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Usuns/ZuevHunsandUsunsEn.htm</ref> who were Tochars( = the general name for Indo-European people of North China). After 2 century BC graves with artificially deformed skulls disappear from Tarim Basin. They appear in Kazahstan. Burials of podboy type also appear there. With the disintegration of Xiongnu descendants, Turkic migration was initiated and Ases - Tochars (Ases- Yuezhi- Wusuns) were pushed from Kazahstan into Europe during 4 century AD and became known as European Huns. <ref>http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Usuns/ZuevHunsandUsunsEn.htm, page 23</ref> Artificially deformed skulls disappear from Kazahstan and appear in Europe. European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.<ref>http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/65_Craniology/YablonskyTracingHunsEn.htm</ref><ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823134_2</ref> | |||
| <ref>https://books.google.bg/books?id=fX8YAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=artificial+cranial+deformation+tocharians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eGhOVdGoIYKQsAHN84CwBg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=artificial%20cranial%20deformation%20tocharians&f=false - p. 33</ref> | |||
| <ref>http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/SOME%20ANCIENT%20CHINESE%20NAMES%20IN%20EAST%20TURKESTAN%20-%20final.pdf - p.23</ref> | |||
| <ref>http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dan11.htm</ref> | |||
| <ref>http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/OBIChAYaT_NA_IZKUSTVENATA_DEFORMACIYa_NA_ChEREPA_PRI_PRABLGARITE.pdf</ref> | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| This theory is supported by several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader: | |||
| 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'' | |||
| 1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars ) were Xiongnu: | |||
| Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and | |||
| ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu. | |||
| Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the | |||
| continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu. | |||
| 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.'' | |||
| 2. There is no convincing evidence that the language of European Huns(and Bulgars) was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (]), indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 3.There are academic sources stating the connections: Utrigurs-> Yuezhi, Vokil-> Yuezhi<ref>http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly1En.htm,p.42-p.46</ref><ref>http://ide.li/article2285.html</ref><ref>http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly2En.htm, p.62</ref> | |||
| 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''. | |||
| ] and many modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi.<ref>http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga%20AtStamatov/Prarodina.htm</ref><ref>http://www.protobulgarians.com/PODSTRANITSA%20NA%20DR%20ZHIVKO%20VOYNIKOV/ZHIVKO%20VOYNIKOV%20-%20PROIZHOD%20NA%20BAALGARITE%20-%20KNIGA%20-%202009.pdf</ref> <ref>Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18</ref> | |||
| 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 ]'' | |||
| 4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.<ref>https://www.academia.edu/4965415/%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A5%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9E-%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%98_%D0%95%D0%97%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%98_%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98</ref> | |||
| 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 . | |||
| 5. The genetic tests show that paternal ancestry between the Bulgarians and the Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 6. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there. <ref>T.P. Kijatkina, Kraniologicheskie materialy iz kurgannyh mogil’nikov Severnoj Baktrii. - Trudy Tadzh. arheol. eksp., VII, s.211.</ref> <ref>A.M. Mandel’shtam, Pamjatniki kushanskogo vremeni v Severnoj Baktrii, s.130.</ref> <ref>http://www.iriston.com/nogbon/news.php?newsid=367</ref> Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of ]- Upsilon "|Y|".<ref>http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga%20AtStamatov/Prarodina.htm</ref> | |||
| :Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive. | |||
| :*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content. | |||
| :*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven. | |||
| :*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ]. | |||
| :*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy. | |||
| :*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo. | |||
| :*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at. | |||
| :*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either. | |||
| :*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — ] <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=== | |||
| Summing the information from these 7 points( including the data about artificial cranial deformation) - linguistic, archaeological, academic - show that: | |||
| I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy. | |||
| While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]] | |||
| European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| population from northern China and particularly from the people known to | |||
| the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to | |||
| Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially | |||
| Turkic and Iranian groups. | |||
| == Extremely Annoying situation == | |||
| Instead of using phrases as "Turkic extraction" and "Turkicized Sarmatians" it is much better to use the the real names of these people because they are known actually - Yuezhi and Wusuns. To what extent the language was Turkic is difficult to say - it was a mixture of Tocharian, Turkic and Iranian languages. There is a research paper explaining this: " Was the Tocharian language really Tocharian?" | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it. | |||
| About Dulo clan article. I would suggest: | |||
| The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions. | |||
| 1. About the article intro - to remove the phrase "Western Turks" - it is not true. Western Turks are much later phenomenon. We could restate it with " Early Turks". | |||
| ] | |||
| 2. About the article intro - to remove the statement " they were claiming Attilid descend". This is knot known - some historians think so, some( in fact most) think they were descendants of Attila. | |||
| ] ] | |||
| 3. To include that Dulo was the ruling dynasty of the Utigur Huns - this is true, and that Utigurs are identified by Zuev and Pulleyblank as one of the tribes of Yuezhi. The name '''Yuezhi means " Moon clan"'''. This is the explanation why Turks from '''Turkey have Moon on their flag''' - they incorporated that part of Wusuns and Yuezhi who didn't move to Europe. That part became their ruling dynasty '''Ashina''', which is '''Tocharian''' word for clear, pale blue - ''Yasna''. That's why they call themselves "sky Turks". This is the historical truth. Bulgars and Ashina Turks have common ancestors - Tochars. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 4. To remove completely the last sentence from the section origin: | |||
| ] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| " Burmov, Peter B. Golden, Gyula Németh and Panos Sophoulis concluded that claiming of Attilid descent shows the intermingling of European Huns elements with newly arrived Oğuric Turkic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples."(4 books cited here) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == IP vandalism == | |||
| nowhere in the cited 4 books there is such conclusion - that " Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" - where, which line? Also, this sentence is illogical - claiming Attilid descend shows....they were Turks. Why? This is completely Crovata's own conclusion. What is the implication here - that Attila was Turk or what ? | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 5. To move the information for the historical rulers of the clan into articles introduction - it is well documented information and the reader will read what is sure for these rulers. This information belongs to the article's intro, not Research History. | |||
| }} | |||
| 6. To include back the information about the Martenica - there are archaeological evidences that such adorments were used in Tarim basin and central Asia and they were brought to the Balkan peninsula by the Huns(Bulgars). | |||
| ] (]) 00:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Moderator intervention needed == | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=User indef blocked for consistent ]ing and ] by ]. {{nac}} --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Addendum: Leaving a note that the user has also used a sockpuppet account. ] (]) 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Both me and ] have left notes on ]'s page as well as through edit summaries, that he should stop creating self-formulated maps and making edits on articles that clearly violate ]. Both me and Doug left him a message yesterday asking this again, and yet, even though promising to cease the Wiki-policy violating activities, he still continues to do so. As of just a few minutes ago, ]; another nonsensical pseudo-historical article about an alleged empire that has never existed, nor any scholar has ever mentioned. I mean, I get that he's (kinda) interested in history and stuff, but he's violating ] over and over now with these self-created maps, articles, etc. ] This is an encyclopedia I believe, not a fairy tale's forum where we create and make up stuff that we want to believe. | |||
| Anyway, honestly I think it's been kinda enough right now as it has gone way out of hand, and we have shown enough willingness in order to make him stop doing this (and most importantly to make him understand why his edits are incorrect) and though I left Doug himself a message some minutes ago prior to writing here so that he could look at it himself, ''Artin Mehraban'' just continued creating more of those OR articles/maps/pictures (as I've demonstrated above). Thus, in order to have this stopped before it gets even worse, I brought it here. | |||
| - ] (]) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll get back to this later today, but there is a problem with this editor. I've given him warnings, advice, suggested a mentor, etc. but to no avail. As have others, eg ] and ]. A number of his uploaded images have been deleted as copyvio. I see he hasn't been notified, I'll do that now. ] (]) 07:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I put ] ] because it was particularly ill-defined, with no geographic identification at all. I think all of ]'s map creations should be looked over, especially by editors with some background in map creation and use along with knowledge of correct map sourcing. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just got Doug's ping. I recently encountered this editor ] ] by this ]. I knew right at that time that ]. When {{u|Doug Weller}} asked me some time ago if an ANI report should be opened about this user I suggested that perhaps he should be given another chance and also be considered for mentorship. I see that the additional chance has been given but without yielding a better result. I have not investigated the extent of the disruption caused by this user but admin intervention may be required, especially since the problems with this editor continue. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I understand I should no at OR maps or images and I will be sure to have academic sources. I just have interest in these articles and topics and I'm sorry | |||
| ] (]) 17:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :], it's been a never ending cycle. We've been asking you over and over not to do so, and you repetitively state that you won't do it anymore. - ] (]) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I will no longer make my own images, and if i do upload images they will either be edits on an already existing image or an image not created by me, but created somewhere on the internet. I beleive thats what your asking me to do. But many times you revert my edits when i add a different portrait to a page. An example is when i added a different portrait of shah abbas on the shah abbas I article. There were MANY painters, miniaturists and etc who made various different portraits of shah abbas. I see no reason for that edit to be reverted. | |||
| Both images were accurate and from that era. And the chances of anyone discussing that is slim, since the only person watchng that article is user: louisAragon who reverted my edits. Lets discuss in good faith, which image should be used, since both are accurate and from that era. Though i realize wikipedia isnt about opinion, ill say it anyway, the colouring reflects persian miniaturist, painting styles and so it should be used. | |||
| ] (]) 17:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Artin, please read ]. Just because you can copy an image from another website doesn't mean that it can be used on Misplaced Pages. You have to provide a source for where the image came from, it must be free to use because you own it, created it, it is the public domain or the creator has released the right to use the image to Misplaced Pages. Do not add new files to Misplaced Pages that do not satisfy Misplaced Pages's copyright guidelines. If you need assistance, go to ]. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] uploaded 23:35, 20 June 2015, which the editor says is from Pinterest. There he says it's his own photo and writes "I Artin Mehraban allow wikipedia to reuse this image which i own on pinterest under the CC-BY-SA". However, it appears at which was the source of the copyvio in Artin Mehraban's original version of ] . ], can you explain this? ] (]) 05:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Image is most probably a copyvio. It is a cropped version of from the Canadian ''Diversity magazine'' and appearing . ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation.—](]) 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you Kww. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I deleted ] as being a copyvio of http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/shah-abbas-i-1557-1628-granger.jpg. He just doesn't understand that because he uploaded it to pinterest, he still doesn't "own" it. ] - ] 00:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Simple fix would be to to formulate a ban on uploading images of any sort for a minimum 6 months or perhaps indefinitely. At the end of 6 months they can appeal the upload ban. ] (]) 03:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, after having communicated with the respective user for quite some time now, I don't think just a ban on uploading topics will work, as there's a fundamental lack in understanding why his overall Wiki activities are blatantly problematic. Despite multiple appeals and messages by both me and Doug, this behaviour continues. - ] (]) 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indef block, as first block, for persistent copyvio is another option. ] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another load of hoaxed stuff from him that needs to be speedily deleted asap (once again) that he just created some mins ago . '''Any''' awake moderator here that can block this guy at last?........ - ] (]) 05:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's a new article he created, ] - all the sources for an "Azad empire" are to science fiction sites or books. Looking at his source for the map he created, one page on that website says " He sat on the throne of the Safavid Empire and proclaimed himself as the king of Persia in 1751 and in 1754 A.D.." Nothing about an Azad empire. Note that his footnote for the map says "this website was created by NajI'm AzadzoI. Since he is from the University of Massachusetts, this website is accurate and scholary source". That he's from UMass seems correct, but he's an architect, not a historian. ] (]) 07:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That whole article and every map in it needs to be speedy deleted as it's extreme hoax. We can't let such stuff stay on here for a single moment. This guy has been a nuisance from the start for everyone, and he makes such maps/articles/edits everyday. I tried my best with him, but he just doesn't understand. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, other than making fairy tales and setting a new record for copyvio/OR violations in such a short time. The fact that numerous users and moderators have numerously asked him to stop yet by his feigned ignorance he has continued ever since, confirms this even more. I mean, like, he does this stuff everyday multiple times, but still he hasn't been blocked or indeffed. It's not like he never received words or warnings about it....(<small>to put it *ahem* polite</small>) He has a long repertoire already for having such behaviour, basically since day 1. We gave him many so many chances. Doug, your words regarding his most recent violations confirm this even more. - ] (]) 09:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Edit; another one - ...Why won't anyone stop this seriously? He's continuously creating non-existing "dynasties", "empires" and "maps" while using science fiction sites/blogs/pinterest links in order to create articles here about matters that never existed. How much more copy-vio, OR and ] violations does one want to see before making a halt to this menace? - ] (]) 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indefinitely blocked. I'm not sure if we're being trolled or if this is a case of ] but either way far too much time is being spent cleaning up after this user who seems to have no intention of stopping. ] (]) 11:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This article has been deleted twice in the , once for BPL violation and once for copyright violation and now {{User|Manox81}} has recreated it. Now it is up for AfD. This same article was deleted on the ]. Please look in to this. ] (]) 09:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If the reasons for speedy deletion have been avoided in the current version (and I see no BLP or copyright concerns in it now), then AfD seems like the correct route to me and I don't see that it has anything to do with admin at this stage. ] (]) 11:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, there might be a copyright problem, depending on http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Mafia_Capitale - is that anything to do with Misplaced Pages? Is it a mirror? But that still seems to me to be within the remit of the usual deletion processes and nothing that needs ANI attention. ] (]) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That page . ] (]) 12:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, thanks. I've just paraphrased anyway, but I think that puts the copyvio issue to bed. ] (]) 12:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, thanks for taking the time. ] (]) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User: Stemoc == | |||
| After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Misplaced Pages policy outlined at ]. The stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the ] article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was previously. | |||
| In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from ], "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at ]. The user then ] me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states ]. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision. | |||
| The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in . Here is part of the exchange... | |||
| {{cquote|No you '''LISTEN''', you are the '''ONLY PERSON''' in the WHOLE of WIKIPEDIA that has a problem with the '''GOOD IMAGE''' being used. I tried solving it amicably but you decide to change the '''IMAGE''' again for the '''UMPTEENTH TIME''', you '''REFUSE''' to a have '''ANY DISCUSSION''' but continuously '''KEEP''' changing the image, the post to have a discussion BARELY lasted '''48 hours''' BEFORE you changed the IMAGE yet AGAIN... You are a '''VANDAL''' and I will '''NOW REPORT''' you....I wrote those in '''CAPS LOCK''' cause you seem to be blind or something ...}} | |||
| If that isn't a case against ] then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page. | |||
| Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at ], in response to after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as ], ], ]." I would also argue he is acting in a ] manner based on his recent edits alone. | |||
| Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is. | |||
| Here are links to edits where the user has reverted me in a hounding manner. {{diff|Donald Trump|667763948}} {{diff|United States presidential election, 2016|667763724}} {{diff|Hannah Ware|660692251}}{{diff|Emily Kinney|660692089}}{{diff|Lauren Cohan|660692018}}{{diff|Michael Cudlitz|660691915}}{{diff|Michael Keaton|660692686}} {{diff|United States presidential election, 2016|667762560}} {{diff|Donald Trump|667748179}} {{diff|United States presidential election, 2016|667747877}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. ] (]) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Before I begin, please remember that ] was previously known as ] and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved and , he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for ] to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation ] and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT ] the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either '''HIS''' images be USED on those articles or '''NO IMAGES''' and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...] goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our ] as was discussed in May on my ]. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Misplaced Pages for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see and quote | |||
| {{cquote|Gage Skidmore is a professional photographer currently based in the Phoenix metropolitan area. He began his career covering politics in 2009, covering the U.S. Senate campaign of ophthalmologist Rand Paul. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of organizations and campaigns, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, ASU Center for Political Thought & Leadership, Campaign for Liberty Foundation, Reason Magazine, Western Center for Journalism, and has been published in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Politico, and Forbes. | |||
| Media/business inquiries: gtskidmore@hotmail.com}} | |||
| If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Misplaced Pages. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. ] (]) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::False accusation?, you accuse me of ]ing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Misplaced Pages as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, ..Just admit it and stop lying please....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::None of what you just wrote is true, I suggest you just stop please. ] (]) 14:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also I'd suggest acting more ] instead of using Caps lock to imply shouting on the administrator noticeboard. ] (]) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::], it's not clear to me how ] is financially benefiting from Misplaced Pages. You link to it doesn't refer to Misplaced Pages at all. And then you reference where not only is Misplaced Pages not mentioned but it states {{tq|he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited.}} and only charges for-profit publications for his work. | |||
| :::I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Misplaced Pages. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Misplaced Pages is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? ] (]) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a ] which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You also used caps on your talk page once because someone "needs to get glasses." ] (]) 14:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*A month ago I reported <s>Gage</s> Calibrador at ANEW so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe <s>Gage</s> Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. ] (]) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*That's great but the image thing ''is'' still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –]<sup>]</sup> 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. ] (]) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to ] regarding image uploads, so this is "]" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private ], there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|Calibrador}}, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. ''']''' (]) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)<br /> | |||
| Back to the issue at hand regarding if <s>{{u|Cometstyles}}</s> Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. <small>(There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...)</small> <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(]) ] (])</span> 04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Misplaced Pages from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link ], even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? ] (]) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours '''IS''' self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at ] for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also by an admin for harassment. ] (]) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I never said I'm an admin. I just came as an uninvolved editor. --] <small>(])</small> 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. ] (]) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Outdent|3}} Yikes! {{U|Bbb23}} just brought the hammer down on ''both'' Stemoc and Calibrador for 24 hours at ]... I'm guessing this one can (and probably should) be closed now. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to keep this open until Stemoc and Calibrador return from their 24 hour blocks. I'd like to hear some proposals, as there's potentially an issue with Calibrador's behaviour, and in turn there's definitely an issue with Stemoc's behaviour. It would be good to get it sorted out with the minimum of fuss, rather than just closing this thread and having a repeat with either Stemoc or another user raising similar complaints in the next few days and weeks. | |||
| I'd think the sensible suggestion here would be that Calibrador is either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images, and consensus is in favour of the change, or there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes. It's important to say at this time that we do appreciate the time and effort he puts into taking and uploading photographs BUT other photographers, both professional and amateur do exactly the same, and in the interests of fairness, we want to see good images from a wide range of different photographers being used on the project, this in turn encourages image contributions from other photographers. Every photographer who takes good images should have an expectation of their images being used by another project and that their images will be chosen fairly, without bias, and on the merit of the photograph and its content, composition and appropriateness for the article. Calibrador's behaviour isn't really allowing that to happen right now. ] (]) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I notice that Calilibrador on his talk page while it was still in force, and that again , only to be . Finally, as soon as the block expired, I would argue that this wholesale lack of transparency demonstrates an ongoing and obsessive interest with his image and PR, with past examples documented in the section below. This is a long-term, and current problem with this editor and there is very little contrition in evidence. I suggest the overall pattern indicates a desire to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for his profession as a photographer. ]]] 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It is, he is trying to keep his talk page clean so that paying clients don't ask about his block, anyways thanks for pointing out the involving him JustDaFax, maybe I should have pointed this out at the very top of the thread and saved myself a lot of time, the admin in that discussion ] warned him not to re-offend, and he did....many times actually..I'm tired of this cause I did not come back after retiring just so that I get involved in MORE wikidrama, I have no issue with this, I just do not like POV pushers regardless of who they might be ...I hope an admin comes with a solution soon which will stop this from happening again..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Umm {{u|Stemoc}} I mentioned the report right above so I'm not sure how you missed it {{p|grin}}, That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –]<sup>]</sup> 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Say, ] could you ping those editors mentioned in your report, that had issues with Cali/Gage? They are likely not aware of this ANI complaint that is now in a state of ] and may well shed some light on why they had concerns. Thanks. ]]] 07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Jusdafax}} - That's actually a good idea ... Should've done that sooner as anything's worth a shot tbh, {{u|MrX}}, {{u|Spartan7W}}, {{u|Lady Lotus}}, {{u|Dwpaul}}. –]<sup>]</sup> 09:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposed sanctions for Calilibrador=== | |||
| *'''Agree''', completely, with ]'s suggestion. It seems to be the most sensible and fair solution. I would be more in favour of the 1RR suggestion; it's not prohibitively restrictive (and doesn't discourage further contributions), but it reigns in any excessive promotional behaviour and forces him to seek consensus with other editors if they take issue with his revisions. ] (]) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Indef block for Calibrador''' - Quinto, that type of sanction is only effective if Cali/Gage sees the continuing errors of his ways, and acts on them. He's been warned repeatedly to no avail, even reverting the block message on his Talk page when warned not to. Stemoc is likely right, Cali/Gage has deep reasons for his Talk page scrubbage. I say indef the character, at least until we get a serious commitment to reform that he can be held to. He's been gaming the system here for too long and shows no intention of stopping. ]]] 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Indef Calibrador''' - I'm probably not going to be liked for this but the editor has caused enough problems and I think the 1RR won't solve anything at all, We could go down the 1RR route but he'd end up being reported at ANEW and then it'll be all over again and he'd end up being blocked - Once unblocked we'll be doing it all over again. Indef seems a better and wiser idea IMHO. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Agree''' -- In complete agreement with Nick here. The 1RR proposal for Calibrador makes a lot of sense. However if that doesn't work an indef seems like the only other option. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Stemoc is hounding Calilibrador and is seriously refusing to drop the stick. <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">] ]</span> 16:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I can understand 1RR and renaming of the files to remove his name (per DGG's comment), but before this last Bbb23 block for edit warring, he's never been blocked, and he has over 25,000 edits behind him. Indef blocking is excessive at this stage. ] - ] 17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *A lot of that was to get him to respond, which he's now doing, if less than satisfactorily. But Dennis, it's my firm belief that if he gets off with 1RR and renaming, he's getting off easy. I really don't want to go wading through his edits, just to find more examples. We are already at TL,DR. Davey 2010 has it right. ]]] 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Current and past problems with Calibrador, formerly Gage Skidmore: suggest extending current BOOMERANG with indef block=== | |||
| Good double block, and I share Nick's concerns. By the way, isn't above in this very ANI complaint (!) using "very close to libel" as an implied legal threat in violation of ], as well the use of the term "paranoia" an attack on the mental condition of the editor Cali/Gage has brought to this board? If so, wouldn't a continued block of C/G be protective in nature? | |||
| In any case, I've had some troubling issues with Cali/Gage Skidmore at the ] article. In brief, he lies, distorts, ignores and in general does whatever needful to get what he wants. My involvement began in 2012 when I cordially welcomed him to the page He gave no reply. | |||
| In August 2013, he repeatedly inserts his own photography as the infobox photo and refuses to reply on his Talk page or on the article Talk page When challenged, he ''lied in his edit summary'' saying, as clearly shown in that I had reverted him without explaining, which the diff shows my edit summary had, and that I was in violation of ], when in fact I had repeatedly asked for Cali/Gage to discuss the matter. | |||
| I also noticed others and Cali/Gage failed to respond to them either. Finally in disgust I walked away from what I felt was an unpleasant and manipulative editing experience. And this editor has a serious set of issues, as noted above, and in just last month, also as noted above. He's a fine photographer, but we can do without his hostile gamesmanship and relentless self-promotion, in my view. ]]] 12:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The use of "very close to libel" once probably shouldn't be construed as a legal threat per ]. I don't really see enough diffs to support this strong of an action. I started looking through some of his photos and they are quite good. Personally, I think it would be a shame to loose his future contributions. --] (]) 05:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reply''' - Not to go all Wikilawyer on you but the pertinent paragraph in that policy: ''It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Misplaced Pages, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation.'' As for photographers, he's good but not good enough to allow his brinksmanship and outright bad faith editing to continue, in my view. ]]] 06:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Comment''' I don't think you are Wikilawyering at all. I just think his phrase "very close to libel" is not quite the same as saying it was "libelous" nor did he do it repeatedly. I think before an indef block is decided, there should be more discussion about whether adding his name to the end of file names is a serious issue. --] (]) 06:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Darn it''' - that's not the only issue, as I demonstrate in this section just above. ''He's been abusing the place for years.'' You're right, the word "repeatedly" is in the policy too. But, now that he's unblocked, what does he do? Wipes his Talk page clean, and ignores the issues raised here. He does not apologize, does not comment, just up and vanishes. You OK with that? Why? Because he takes good pictures? ]]] 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I don't disagree with you that there are serious issues. I just did Google search in images for "Gage Skidmore" and it returns pages of his photos. So, maybe 1RR or 0RR would be a better starting point for now? --] (]) 07:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I think the first thing we all need to agree to is to ''get him to talk.'' He has a well-established history of avoiding discussion. That has to stop. Indef him, he's forced to face the music on his pristine talk page. He can answer questions there, express contrition and understanding of our policies, etc. Seriously, he must not be given a slap on the wrist and turned loose again on the project. Enough is enough. ]]] 07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Calibrador response=== | |||
| If you look at my more recent edits, aside from accidentally reverting too many times on one article without knowing (trust me, it was my mistake), I have begun using edit summaries, tried to seek consensus, and mostly tried to avoid conflict. Stemoc reverted several different edits over several different pages within a short span of time simply for the fact that he believes I am somehow a COI violator. What should I really have done differently? I tried to include discussion, and a clear edit summary at every opportunity. | |||
| I sincerely apologize for my past indiscretions, I have seen the error of ways in the past about not discussing changes seen as controversial. I don't need to be punished in order to see that, I see it clearly already. Also, I did not disappear, and inviting everyone that has had something bad to say about me with no one on the other side to defend me is a little biased. | |||
| The main issue that was at heart here that was underblown because Stemoc enjoys making a lot of noise, and crying COI at every possible chance, is the ] and uncivil nature of their edits. I have no idea why this has changed into a discussion about me. I've realized my edits in the past were disruptive, and if you look at my edits recently, I made sure to include an edit summary in nearly every contribution, and when necessary, created or participated in discussion. This includes the 3RR that I accidentally got myself into without realizing, I created a discussion on the talk page, and included a reason for making the edit in my edit summary. Unfortunately that was completely ignored by Stemoc in favor of COI accusations, and stating that I'm profiting from Misplaced Pages, which I have not ever. I suggest concentrating on that rather than my past mistakes which I apologize for, and have tried to amend. ] (]) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Also the thing on my talk page was a mistake, I did not know about that policy, and when it was re-added, I accidentally thought someone re-added it to my talk page just to rub it in or something like that, I didn't look at the history page until after I had made the edit. My mistake once again. As for now, all users have control over their talk page, I think Stemoc is once again assuming bad faith, and made another COI allegation that was unfounded. I don't want to distract from the main issue though that I think has not even been addressed yet, so please discuss Stemoc's offenses. ] (]) 12:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I actually found Gage creating ] really odd until I did a bit of research and found out that he is somewhat of a "follower" and then i found ..should we now assume Gage is a ] as well cause your edits related to Rand Paul sure looks a lot like public relations work..no? So you use the wiki to push your own agendas, create articles on stuff which again boosts your own career and then you lie about it and then come here and blame me for foiling you? Just claim that you are a and you are doing all this just to boost your own career and this will all be over...Heck, you even uploaded a new yet ] picture of Donald trump because you didn't like the I ] as it wasn't one of 'yours'...When i first came across you a few years ago, I thought you were a hero for adding HQ pics of celebs and politicians free of charge, boy was I wrong and yet even when multiple users above have claimed that you have been 'gaming' the system, you still deny it and deflect it back to me...Honestly, if all this does not result in a ban or a block for you, I worry that you will do it all over again cause honestly, I do not think you joined wikipedia to help grow the database and you have no intentions whatsoever to follow our policies if they contradict with your ambitions and you have already been on the ] notice board 3 times over the last 50 days and yet you keep blaming others and refuse to accept that you made mistake after mistake and you even blanked your talk page twice even after 2 admins warned you not to and then you blanked it again the 3rd time just 10 minutes after your block was lifted..Why would anyone not worried about their image do that?...If you somehow walked away from this with just a slap on your hand then this would mean Misplaced Pages has failed...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please stop stalking my edits and ]. You've made your same point over and over and over, I'd like an admin opinion on your behavior, not your same opinion. ] (]) 13:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *No doubt, Stemoc has his own issues. But this is the first I've heard of this Rand Paul article, which opens a new and distressing window on your POV pushing activities, Calibrador. Leaving that aside for the moment, as well as your excuses for blanking the block notices on your talk page repeatedly, which strain credulity since you are saying you didn't read the admin postings at all, we come to the issues I have delineated in detail above. ''You have posted a lot of words here. Not a single one addresses my specific and documented concerns, and those of others who have further concerns.'' So is this the best you can do? A "sweat promise" to now, after years, act like most decent Wikipedians, and actually use edit summaries, actually seek consensus? Now that major sanctions are under discussion here, I challenge you to address the charges that have been brought forward. ]]] 13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I thought I addressed them? I admit I should have participated in discussion in the past instead of acting in a cold manner. I hardly even remember the incident you are talking about in regards to the LA Reid article. FWIW, that was not my photo, I did not take it. I was acting like any other editor looking for a better image that was freely available on Flickr, and thought that better illustrated the subject of the article, and thought it was weird that a photo with someone else in the photo that was years older was preferred. I did not look at the article history you linked, I'm just going by memory. Not sure what else I can say, but I'd very much like a response to Stemoc's behavior, as absolutely no one with any authority has had anything to say about their hounding and uncivil behavior that I documented in my original report. ] (]) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Also, not to make this any sort of issue, but I just looked at the article, and would note that the photo that I added is now the photo that is universally used to illustrate the article across Misplaced Pages projects, and not as a result of me. Someone else did that. I really have no memory of that situation though, it was several years ago. I know I was in the wrong on that though, so I apologize. ] (]) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The fact that GageSkidmore/Calibrador suddenly changed his username is an indication that his intentions here are likely less than good faith. I really don't see a pressing issue at all with Stemoc, but with GageSkidmore/Calibrador we see a user who is all about self-promotion, and in many regards, whose motivations, i.e. Rand Paul book, etc. are questionable. He likes to ensure his pictures retain precedence over all others; yes, he takes many pictures that are free-use, and that is good. But many of his pictures aren't of article quality and composition, and he many times fights for ones that are the least worth inclusion. There have been problems in the past, and I see them again. He likes making great streams of edits on pages, rather than carefully consolidating his efforts, he continues to put 'by Gage Skidmore' on every single picture uploaded to the commons, obvious self promotion, and his consistent efforts to evade (name change and notification deletes) demonstrate his negative impact here. '''] ]''' 14:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I would just like to note that I stole that idea from David Shankbone, should we bring David Shankbone to AN/I? The stream of edits that I think you are referring to were an effort to try to control my own content. Many (not all) of the photos that were uploaded from my photostream were cropped very poorly, or were not the best one to illustrate an article in my opinion. Most (not all) of my recent photo additions were replacing of my own photos with an alternate crop, or slightly different color, sharpness, etc. Some mistook that as simply uploading the same photo with a different title, but that was not the case, people were adding my photos to Misplaced Pages unknowingly to me, and I wasn't particularly a fan of the way they looked, however minor it was. I don't specifically recall very many instances where a "stream" of edits other than that one instance where it was controversial and someone took notice of it. After I was brought to the noticeboard, I did not continue that behavior. Despite what you may think, I'm capable of learning from my mistakes. As was the case with the recent noticeboard discussion, and is the reason I used an edit summary and created discussions on several recent articles. Unfortunately that was disrupted by Stemoc who reverted several different edits across several different pages, crying COI and that I'm somehow being paid to edit Misplaced Pages, how exactly should I have responded to that other than the way that I did? In the first few instances on one specific page, I reverted with a descriptive edit summary stating my opposition to the revert of my edit, and also included a talk page post. That post was met with a paragraph of COI accusations. In the end, another user, ] reverted the page back to my version twice more when Stemoc reverted it to their version. The fact that I overstepped 3RR was an accident on my part, I understand that policy very clearly, I would not have overstepped that if I had known the first edit I made also counted as a revert, I was simply re-adding official portraits that were replaced for some reason unknown to me. In regards to the Paul thing, I would simply consider myself an expert on the topic, the book article was added because I was trying to keep it consistent with the previous two book articles. Not sure what you were trying to imply with that, especially since the article is not written in a biased manner. I don't believe I've ever made any sort of NPOV edits to anything Paul related, if I did that was a mistake, but I do not believe I did. The only thing I can think of are stylistic article choices. ] (]) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really Shankbone? the guy that took random celebrity pics and never had a COI or ever pushed his POV across wikimedia? only a handful of his celebrity pics were with his name in the image title which i mentioned above, we ALLOW...not 100% of his images..He rarely if at all replaced someone's images with his own unless it was outdated and I doubt he made a single-cent out of doing this..I would be really surprised if he was ever dragged onto any of the ] boards..and again, you are deflecting..Now you are claiming that users like ] and I made "bad" crops?. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, ] by Lady Lotus was so "badly cropped" than you just had to it with ] of yours? or ] with ] version or ] image with one of ] for the exact same reason.. I don't think you care about the quality of your images cause if you did and you thought your version was BETTER, you would have uploaded your version over the "same image" that you were trying to replace, instead of uploading a same if not similar crop with again, your name in the image title...I have told you on multiple occasion that if any user on enwiki or commons finds an image on flick with a free licence and they find there is a need for that image on ANY of the 700 odd wikis we have (300 of which are wikipedias), they will freely be allowed to upload that image to commons so if you have a problem with it, please, feel free to change the license of your images on flickr to ARR (All Rights Reserved) but at the same time, you won't be allowed to upload those images here either without scrutiny....and regarding the PrairieKid edit, If you actually see the history, he changed an image because another user reverted my edit because he didn't understand why my "revert" of your edit was a "self-promotion" because you had your name changed which is why you did it (you can lie about it many times but we all know why)..infact there was no 3RR by me but I accepted the block because I felt that maybe NOW people might see exactly what I have been saying all along, I don't have to repeat myself again as everything i have said is listed above..You may not see it but even though you have been around since 2009, you still refuse to understand or follow our policies so you have not only violated one, but MANY of our policies over the years and you only got away with it because of your name. I have listed a few of your violations above and on the 3RR thread which you keep going back too, this board is NOT for 3RR....this board is about your attitude on this wiki and how you deal (or lack thereof) with other users and your ability (on inability) to both understand or follow our polices and your insistence of claiming over and over again that you are the victim here when its clear that you are not....So instead of ] to me, why don't you tell us why an admin should not block you? and P.S, I'm NOT Hounding you, I'm getting you to talk because over the last 6 years you have been on this wiki, you REFUSE to talk when posed a question and you always ignore hierarchy on this wiki and now when you have this opportune time to save yourself, you deflect, passing the blame onto someone else without realizing that this will only make it worse for you....the only reason I'm replying to your posts is because you keep mentioning my name and pointing fingers at me, i know how to defend myself since I have been in similar situation a few times....Everytime I post, I added more proof regarding your edits, and everytime you posts, its just more accusations hurled at me without an ounce of proof and yet, I'm the one hounding him as you claim....anyways I have wasted too much time on this, I have better things to do across wikimedia--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Stemoc, first off, you gotta learn to not slap up these giant text walls that make the average editor's eyes glaze over, and tone down your use of caps. That said, it appears to me you have a number of decent points. There is no doubt that Cali/Gage has utterly and repeatedly failed for years now to discuss and come to consensus, except when he is lying, which I document above. I'm hoping by keeping this thread open that others will come forth, so we can establish what kind of sanctions Cali/Gage will be facing. There is growing consensus something has to be done. Cool out, man. ]]] 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Haha, yeah can't help it bro, once I have something to talk about, my wall can be higher than the Great Wall of China..I actually cut myself short there cause most of the things that needed to be said has already been said....I have mentioned a few times that i use Bolds or Caps or "quotes" for "emphasis" only, I'm not really "shouting"..I agree, this has dragged far too long and needs to be solved once and for all...I have no interests in making edits to the wikipedia-space as i prefer most if not all my edits to be on the main space..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I was notified about this discussion on my talk page. I do not favor an indefinite block of Gage Skidmore (the username change was in bad faith, however, and should be reversed imo). Though he has demonstrated a strong POV against notable minor candidates for office as I documented , my main issue with Skidmore is his lack of communication, specifically his refusal to discuss contentious edits he makes in furtherance of his POV. Nevertheless, based on what he has written above, I believe he has the potential to change. He adds great content to articles and wikipedia should not eliminate his ability to do so through an indefinite block. A 1RR restriction seems like a fair remedy. This may encourage him to discuss his edits (as part of the ] method) rather than reverting reverts without providing any justification.--] (]) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal for interaction ban=== | |||
| At this point I think it would be very wise to consider implementing an ] between myself and Stemoc, I don't conceive this ever resolving amicably as far as their prerogative goes, so I think this would be the best way to not be disruptive. ] (]) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' such interaction ban since the only one to benefit from it would be the proposer himself, who would get rid of a vocal critic. Criticism that IMO is justified, because like many others here I see Calibrador's activities as using Misplaced Pages for promotion. ] ] 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' - Yup Thomas's hit the nail on the head - ] states and I quote "{{xt|The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved}} - There is no conflict - It's simply one (well actually quite alot) of editors unhappy with you and your self promotion here. –]<sup>]</sup> 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' If they were ] about it, I wouldn't have made the request. Unfortunately they are one of the most uncivil people I have ever had interaction with. ] (]) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :They have been civil tho so that doesn't wash either..... –]<sup>]</sup> 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not true. ] (]) 21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' - per Thomas W. I'm fed up, obviously. As I comment above, Stemoc's off-putting delivery is annoying, and post-block, he needs to cool that down. But Stemoc's got some valid points, and I for one am glad he's making the push to inform the wider community about Calibrador's promotional and conflicted edit history. This self-serving proposal merely continues that pattern, and coming in the midst of an ongoing discussion of boomerang sanctions against Calibrador, is arguably disruptive. Cali/Gage has clearly learned ''nothing'' from the way this thread has gone. If this is the best he can do, indef him, and we can discuss it without his attempts to turn the discussion. ]]] 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:TripWire == | |||
| {{archivetop|result={{nac}} I am closing this since the filer was blocked. However, on a personal note, Tripwire is reminded to keep civility intact and avoid overstepping bounderies and report the user of ] at ANI instead of going otherwise. ] (]) ] 04:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| User:TripWire keeps insulting, calls me idiot. Calls me stupid. Call me liar. Call me vandal. Tell him stop please. ] (]) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : To Admins: Please, if you cant stop the IP from hounding me, reverting my every edit, accusing me of being from Pakistan Army atleast 5 times a day () then what else do you expect me to do, if not react? In the last instance he came to my page and despite that he has been reported for hounding me and accusing me, he dared to accuse me fir the same thing once again ?? I m sorry, but if the Admins are not going to stop this IP from accusing me and disrupting my (ach & every) edits, then I will be forced to do it myself - calling him a Liar is the easiest way to do that, what else should I call him? Please stop him! —] <sup>] </sup> 14:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :He has accused me for the follwoing 10 times: | |||
| :* | |||
| :* . | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :Misplaced Pages wont stop him from accusing, harassing and hounding, but he still has the cheeks to report me instead?—] <sup>] </sup> 14:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you write on your userpage that you're on the Pakistani army, and add link to you blog as well, then say on use page of topGun is you blog, and copy info from same blog? Is no accusation to repeat what you say. ] (]) 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': I have run across this ongoing dispute a number of times since some of the articles they're editing are on my watch list, and it's a bit of POV from both sides, but there's also an unsavoury pattern of harassment involved, where a number of registered users are prodding and harassing IP 82.11.33.86, including by reverting perfectly legitimate edits as 'vandalism', and then issue user warnings for it, to make their own edits in the content disputes look as if they're reverting vandalism. Which they no doubt do both to avoid 3RR and to make the IP look bad. So don't blame the IP for everything, as TripWire & Co want to do. ] ] 16:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sir, this 'dispute' would end if you or other admins can make this IP to quit hounding me. I dont care if the IP is blocked for editwarring or not because that is debatable and I can be wrong, but when it comes to ], lying, accusing and disrupting my very action including discussion at unrelated Talk Pages, I would request Admins to intervene. What surprises me is the fact that dispute all the reports and the explanation, none of the admins have yet once indicated to the IP that he should avoid accusations, even though the admin at WP:COIN, where I was reported by this IP, said it clearly that what the IP claimed is not true. The silence in this case has caused the IP to aggravate his actions and now the situation is so out of control that the IP would jump in every Talk Page I am having a discussion and without giving in recourse to the ongoing discussion will simply ruin my participation by accusing me of the same old lie for which I have reported him already. I wonder how long would you guys allow this to continue? | |||
| ::As for reverting the IPs edits, I have not done it expect when he had reverted my edits first. I have yet to make an edit on any page without talking about it on the respective Talk Page, and once I do, only then I have made a few changes, but the IP has no right to simple Revert it without explaining his actions. I am sorry, but it seems as if this IP has a free pass here. | |||
| ::If only the admins can compare his contribution at Talk Pages Vs the Reverts he had made, things would be much clearer. Thanx —] <sup>] </sup> 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Well. {{U|Bbb23}} blocked the 82 IP already. The diffs given here by 78 are not acceptable-- is a good example of POV-driven commentary. I have no opinion on TripWire, not having looked around that much, but I'll take ]'s word for it--Thomas, if there's a case to be made, or if there are individuals or individual diffs that cross a line, please do place warnings on user talk pages and/or let the admins know. Also, TripWire, I'm getting kind of tired of this "admins give editor X a free pass" kind of whining. The moment you start paying a higher subscription fee to edit Misplaced Pages, I'm all yours. ] (]) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am sorry for sounding rude, wont happen again. All I wanted to point out was that how would you feel if let's say Mr X barges in every discussion you are involved in, irrespective of the fact that whether Mr X is involved in the discussion or not and EVERY TIME, instead of adding anything meaningful to the discussion, says: | |||
| ::* 'you are an Alien' | |||
| ::* 'I know you are an Alien' | |||
| ::* 'I know you are an Alien coz you once said so' | |||
| ::* 'you are an alien so you dont have any right to edit pages related to aliens' | |||
| ::* 'You are an Aline coz you edit pages related to Alien only' | |||
| ::* etc etc. | |||
| ::If you think this attitude is acceptable here at Misplaced Pages, I will stop complaining.—] <sup>] </sup> 05:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Need IP block == | |||
| {{archivetop|result={{nac}} IP was blocked by ]. Little reminder: you could have reported the user to ] and if a page protection is required please file a request at ]. ] (]) ] 04:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|121.219.253.98}} made some POV edits and now edit wars about them. He should be blocked for a few days. | |||
| IP's initial edits: , , , and . Please also notice the edit summary of the last edit. | |||
| Reverts of my undos after warning on talkpage: , , , , . | |||
| The edits are related to ], but I think there is no need to go there for such obvious violations (especially in view of the time-consuming bureaucracy there). ] (]) 14:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I posted a warning on his talkpage, which he ignores. ] (]) 14:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gosh, normally Debresser and I disagree about everything there is to disagree about, but here I 100% agree with him (This is a first!) : please block this IP vandal ASAP. (Now, I will faint.) ] (]) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Blocked. ] - ] 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, ], now {{User|107.188.21.240}} | |||
| :There is a lot of IP vandalism presently in the IP area; edits like makes me wonder if it is ]? If so, fasten the seat-belts: turbulence ahead, ] (]) 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is always more violence in Israel during the ] (something to add to that article, perhaps), and the same seems to be true on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Bulk Delete Action by Robert RMS125a AT yahoo.com aka Quis separabit?== | |||
| {{archive top|result=Pointless. ] - ] 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| User RMS125a AT yahoo.com (Voluntarily uses email as username) - Robert - (aka Quis separabit?) He is subjectively making bulk-deletes to edits that include encyclopedic, neutral, verifiable facts to an existing page, and threatening editor with Ban and use of 3RR, while he expends no effort to edit or correct the data which offends him. Someone else puts in the work, and he simply swoops in and deletes it. | |||
| This is very off-putting and strong-arm style of warning / scaring off more novice editors, as is his assumption, with immediately threatening with bans and blocks. | |||
| All actions by this individuals are consistent with https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing | |||
| I need assistance from the community to slow down RMS125a AT yahoo.com, and get him to "chill" his style, as another user has put it. | |||
| Please assist here by adding the proof from edits he has made on https://en.wikipedia.org/Jenn_Cuneta | |||
| Thanks <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::: User RMS125a AT yahoo.com (Voluntarily uses email as username) - Robert - | |||
| :::::::: a) this is not my username and it is my signature that should be used to reference me, although my name is, of course, Robert | |||
| ::::::::: b) my username was grandfathered in ages ago. | |||
| :::::::::: c) I did in fact expend "effort to edit or correct the data", this was no wholesale blanking or as the IP calls it "Bulk Delete Action" of the entire article, the IP just doesn't like the particular edits I made and this action is an abuse of process in itself, in my opinion, to get me to "chill style". ] 16:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, your user name '''''is'''''' "Rms125a@hotmail.com", which you yourself make quite clear in "b" when you say "my '''''<u>username</u>''''' was grandfathered in ages ago" (which is true - emphasis added). That you want to be referred to by your sig, "Quis separabit?", is another matter altogether - that request should be respected, but it doesn't make your sig your username, which remains "Rms125a@hotmail.com".{{parabr}}I suggest that if you want to avoid this issue in the future, you simply go to ] and change your user name from ""Rms125a@hotmail.com" to "Quis separabit?", which will have the advantage of stopping people who aren't aware of your grandfathered status from complaining about the apparent violation of ]. If you, for whatever reason, choose not to do this, then I'm afraid you're going to have to expect to continue to explain your status for years to come, but when you do so, please don't misstate the facts about what your username is. It is ""Rms125a@hotmail.com" - and a ping to "Quis separabit?" will not go to your account. ] (]) 17:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: FTR, I '''support''' Ken's suggestion to update your Username at WP:CHU here. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Removal of unsourced promotional material from ] is entirely in accord with Misplaced Pages policy. And if you keep adding it, you may find yourself blocked from editing. ] (]) 14:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : On a side-note. In edit RMS125a AT yahoo.com seems to have removed a few categories that should be there. ] (]) 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: MY username is not RMS125a AT yahoo.com; please refer to me by my signature. ] 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: This hysterical overreaction by the IP who made this frivolous complaint belies the fact that the article -- like those of so many other artists, musicians, actors from a certain region -- is in my estimation overrun with tabloid-esque details, incessant promotionalism, ]/] text, etc. (see ). It needed trimming and I trimmed it. I had no reason to do so except to maintain standards. That is called ], no? In fact the IP himself/herself recognized this and removed some of the disputed text him/herself before coming here (see ). In my edit summaries I merely explained the problem(s) and advised this ''apparent'' newbie against violating ] which I felt I should do for ethical reasons although I admit I shouldn't have used all capital letters (see ). ] 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * The OP persist in adding unsourced trivia to an article. A long-tome Misplaced Pages reverts. The IP comes to the admins with hysterical claims of disruption. Who here knows ]? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* {{Small|Does it involve a pony?... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Where is this unsourced trivia. Why does everyone around have a huge ego, as if editing this minor article about a minor personality matters to any of you? This is a minor thing, yet everyone tries to come off like they are a lord of the universe. Each and every sentence and every fact can be googled, people. Every bit of so-called trivia is google-able and you will get the reference immediately. I'm certain none of you will expend the time to google and source the data. I am contributing information for others to find, in the most complete way, and my efforts are simply being laughed at. I also attempted to email the user directly, but I don't believe that I've received a response as of yet. Its very sad indeed that people spend time adding information, such as discography, to make data in Misplaced Pages more complete, only to have others come and delete these entries for no apparent discernible reason. RMS125a@yahoo.com please change your username to Quis separabit. And PS. The "offending" paragraph which was voluntarily removed by me was copied directly from the youtube account description from the music publisher. You could have googled it as well. I don't sit around composing promotional materials. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:09, June 21, 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> | |||
| ::: MY username is not RMS125a@yahoo.com, again. | |||
| :::: "hange your username to Quis separabit." --nope; not even your business. | |||
| ::::: A lot of editing is <s>speculation</s> subjective which is why we seek ] on talkpages first before going to ANI, unless someone is so abusive there is no other option. I am not that someone. I am not perfect and I do sometimes have deletionist instincts, but your hysteria and abuse of process stands for itself. And when you have 150,000 or so edits under your belt, let me know. ] 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * My IP is in New York, NY. I am not a singer, artist, musician or performer. I'm also not affiliated in any way with any music labels. Your keyboard-bullying and grandstanding does not impress nor intimidate me. Your lack of apology, Robert, further belies the sad truth that this process makes you somehow feel superior and powerful over others. I'm not impressed nor intimidated by your threatening, disrespectful and condescending manner. I don't care who is a novice, newbie, n00b or anything that you care to call someone other than yourself and your comrades who have a bazillion deletions under their belt. It's a 💕 on-line. EVERYONE can make edits. SORRY to bring your world of perceived self-import crashing down on you. Your insults and behavior, manner of self-expression are simply pathetic and in complete opposition to the ideals and values that Misplaced Pages embodies, regardless of how many people agree on any level with any particular action that you take. This entire exercise is a waste of time for me, but I'm doing it on principle. You obviously have no respect for others. I can also see by reading your initial comment here, that you are a bigot and a racist, as you attempt to point a finger at people of a certain creed. I'm actually a Caucasian American born in the US, but I nonetheless find your comments incredibly offensive. I hope that if you have any Asian or Pacific-Islander friends that they see the way you choose to express yourself. For everyone else - please refrain from making generic blanket statements, and rather take the time to investigate something before you respond.<small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::It doesn't matter where your IP is -- that would be a matter for ] in the event you were accused of ], which no one, including me, has done. You do not have to have a material or financial interest to engage in promotional text, sometimes without necessarily intending to. Fans are fans. Some of my (aforementioned) 100,000+ edits have been undone over the years in articles in which I was, shall we say, overly enthusiastic. I didn't realize I was expected to make an apology since ''you'' are the one who dragged me here. But I do regret if you feel I impugned your integrity. Disagreements ≠ verbal assaults, and if my sometimes florid language led you to believe otherwise I apologize. ] 21:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Robert, It was in reference to your finger-pointing towards "those of so many other artists, musicians, actors from a certain region -- is in my estimation overrun with tabloid-esque details, incessant promotionalism." This is why I pointed out my location and the fact that i did not belong to any such group. Your language, initially, was not the issue. The issue is that someone (myself) logged on, added information to wikipedia, in several different areas of a single article, and a minute after-wards with no warning, you simply deleted everything that had been added. When I noticed and reverted your deletion, you reverted again and threatened me with ban and used ALL CAPS. I looked you up, and saw that (of course) its not the first time that someone had been ticked off by your "deletionist tendencies" (This is 66.65.111.148) ] (]) 13:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Can we close this thing out? It does not appear anyone has anything to add and I cannot see anything positive coming from keeping this thread active. ] did not reply to my last comments (see above), and we must all move on. ] 02:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Actually, {{U|66.65.111.148}}, {{U|Rms125a@hotmail.com|Robert}} is correct in removing what you added in. On articles dealing with ] we have strict guidelines as to what can be there. The first guideline is anything in there has to have a reference with it, we can't just ask the users to google it, if there's no reference, then that item has to be removed. If you '''are''' the artist or are part of her P/R company you can have your identity verified via a group of trusted users and that will help '''somewhat''' ''but'' it won't get you around having to use verifiable sources when posting into that article. <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">] ]</span> 11:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Lets assume for a moment that this is all that Robert's actions amounted to - then don't you still think that for verifiable facts that are added to wikipedia, at least the author should be alerted / notified to add a reference? Not to mention that adding the reference is an added layer of functionality which requires further action and appropriate know-how. None of us are born as encyclopedia editors, right? Isn't it safe to assume that everyone has to start somewhere, and that a gentle guiding hand is more appropriate approach than deletion of what is otherwise accurate, factual and useful information (assuming there's a reason that you landed on this particular article in the first place) Isn't there a better approach than simply deleting other peoples' contributions, due to lack of a reference, which can otherwise be looked up? Ultimately, I don't care for any apology from anyone. I want people to behave in a civil, unthreatening and hopefully welcoming manner, and to accept that other people will make legitimate contributions to articles. If we start deleting everything that offends us and doesn't suit what we think should be there, all that it will accomplish is that people will be turned off from participation. Robert didn't even know me, and he made so many assumptions about who I may be, why I may be adding information and how it would be appropriate to respond to me. This behavior is more suitable to a sysadmin of a BBS... you offend the admin and your get blocked and/or banned. Every action here is somehow justified by some policy page on Misplaced Pages. Since my discography edits have now remained in tact, I have nothing further to add in this thread. I just hope that everyone can get off their high horse. Adding references is not a big deal. With the amount of effort that has been expended here in discussion, all of the references could have been added by now. I'm sure that there must be a standard way of referencing for discography. I'm certain wikipedia is choke-full of big-name artists and their discographies. (also from 66.65.111.148) ] (]) 13:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: "'' Isn't it safe to assume that everyone has to start somewhere, and that a gentle guiding hand is more appropriate approach than deletion of what is otherwise accurate, factual and useful information?''" Yes, it absolutely is - but there's one place where it's not, and that's unsourced information in ], which is subject to immediate removal. However, it is ''not'' an arcane art to add references to anything you insert - simply find a ] confirming the information, and use the citation wizard to add it in. ] 14:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is this thread ever going to end or is it a ]? It has become an irritant. ] 14:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Persistent removal of a Wikilink == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Moving to ] where it belongs. Will notify both parties. Permalink to AN3 filing: {{nac}} ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{vandal|Aaabbb11}} has persistently removed the Wikilink to "]" in the article ].<br /> | |||
| My warning to him/her was to no avail. An intervention is needed. ] (]) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, it belongs at the ]. Second, this definitely belongs in ] territory. *sigh* --] <small>(])</small> 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User:WalgreensOsorio == | |||
| Not sure who this person is, but they attempted to add PP to ]. Userpage claims they are a commons-admin, but fails verification (likely a hijacked cut-paste from someone).--] ] 18:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Links: {{Userlinks|WalgreensOsorio}} {{br}} And I've added a follow-up comment to their Talk page. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: It seems their userpage is largely copied from . ] ] 19:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ''Follow-up:'' No sign of {{U|WalgreensOsorio}} since before this ANI case was filed – is it legitimate if one of us removes the "Commons Admin" userbox from their User page ourselves after this amount of time?... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == 94.197.121.181 == | |||
| {{archivetop|Blocked. ] (]) 09:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{IP|94.197.121.181}} has been repeatedly adding questionable and unsourced claims to articles; after I repeatedly reverted their changes to ], they reverted my changes with the edit summaries | |||
| * {{tq|Shut Up}} | |||
| * {{tq|shut the fuk up. No adding embedded notes}} | |||
| * {{tq|no more adding embedded notes}} | |||
| so could an admin perhaps get this editor's attention? ] (]) 19:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *It's always nice to see that the articles that shouldn't be in a real encyclopedia generate the most trouble. ] (]) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, I blocked them for a bit, for this edit warring and for being not very friendly in those edit summaries. BTW, "fuk", that's just plebeian. BTW, I have no idea what the "embedded" stuff is about; it's always a good idea to get consensus on the talk page, so that dumb admins like me know what's going on. ] (]) 22:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == LooneyTunerIan copyright and intimidation == | |||
| I recently nominated a few articles from ] for speedy deletion due to ] (see: ] and ]). Both times, he's responded on my user talk page and claimed that he will recreate these pages. His language has been aggressive and intimidating. See diffs here: {{Diff|User talk:BU Rob13|668036851|668034195|}} {{Diff|User talk:BU Rob13|667939921|667902648}} | |||
| I've also noticed other similar behavior by this user on various user and article talk pages. See diffs/pages here: {{Diff|User talk:Jimfbleak|668033826|667881857}} | |||
| I've attempted to politely explain the importance of our copyright policy to this editor when he's posted on my talk page, and I also posted a warning regarding appropriate interaction with other editors on his talk page back when it wasn't being directed at me. Could an administrator please take a look at this situation (both the intimidation and possibly explaining the copyright issues to this editor)? The most recent edit on my talk page in particular is making me a bit uncomfortable, and I'd like to remove myself from the situation. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 02:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The aggressive commentary aside, what we have here sounds like a lack of ]. {{ping|LooneyTunerIan}} needs to understand that copyright violations are dealt with very seriously. Threatening, or implying, to readd copyright violations is grounds for an immediate indefinite block. Edit warring over it is also foolish. ] (]) 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Forgot to note this instance of aggression as well: ] ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 03:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :]] has created 19 unsourced articles and shows no sign of stopping or working in collaboration with other editors. The editor is ] to contribute positively to the project. ] (]) 03:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs. --] (]) 04:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Well that, or you could provide some sources to your articles and learn to work with other editors. ] (]) 04:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|LooneyTunerIan}} If you wish to have those articles deleted, you can add <nowiki>{{Db-g7}}</nowiki> to the top of the article, provided that you are the only significant contributor to them. On the other hand, I'd much rather you stick around and improve the articles to meet ] and ]. No-one here has anything against you personally or Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 05:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Flat Out}} No. :( It's better if they all get taken down and deleted. I even nominated them for deletion myself. --] (]) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|BU Rob13}} You mean to say that adding <nowiki>{{Db-g7}}</nowiki> to all of my articles that I have created will automatically delete them? Are you sure it'll work? --] (]) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|LooneyTunerIan}} It wouldn't immediately delete them, but it would add a template to the page that would mark them for speedy deletion under the criteria of ] (artist requesting deletion). Adding them to the category you've created will not mark them for speedy deletion by itself. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 05:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|BU Rob13}} In any case, I've done what you said. All of my articles that I have made have the <nowiki>{{Db-g7}}</nowiki> symbol on them. All I can do now is wait... and see if they get deleted. With any luck, they might. But after this, I am never creating another Looney Tunes-based article again. I'll leave that to the professionals. --] (]) 06:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This appears to have been resolved. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 07:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism report== | |||
| {{archivetop|Sorted. ] (]) 09:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Wiggles | |||
| Page has references to Satanism, Hell-swords and other material not relevant and defamatory to page topic <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Thanks for noticing. Removed. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ==merely self-promotional userpage== | |||
| {{archivetop|Deleted. In the future please tag with ] or ] as appropriate. ] (]) 09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| The content of userpage ] suggests an abuse for self-promotion. --] (]) 08:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Interaction ban request== | |||
| I'm requesting a formal ] between myself and {{U|Annvarie}}. I've been editing ] since March, and almost every edit I make seems like an uphill battle with the force of Annvarie. Within three hours of my to the page, right back in March, I had somehow found myself in an . It's continued this way ever since. | |||
| ] for Annvarie to get their teeth stuck into. From to , that were origianlly changed to conform to ]. Annvarie can somehow word an argument for practically any change made to the article. Annvarie also shows no sign of ] when editing. Every single dispute the two of us have had has resulted in either Annvarie barking at me on some platform, me asking an admin for their opinion, or me starting a discussion on the talk page. While you may sit there thinking "What's the issue in taking it to the talk page?", trust me, it gets to the point where you really have to ask yourself what you're doing with your life, opening a wordy ] motioning to to change a chart name from "US R&B" to "US R&B/HH" hindered by an initial edit war with Annvarie. | |||
| I started at my sandbox, writing a large chunk of it and saving it under a hidden note to take a nap for a couple of hours. I guess Annvarie saw my draft, through flicking through my contributions or other means, based on their next edit summary, another revert of mine, saved with the most pageant-y edit summary I've seen since creating an account here: something extremely polarizing from the usual blank summary or occasional summary CAPITALIZING buzz words like GUIDELINES or POLICIES to REALLY GET ACROSS THE MESSAGE that they know what they're TALKING ABOUT. On the intuition Annvarie saw my sandbox and found out about my plans to request an IBAN, I tried one last time to , and ask to work through issues, stylistic differences, and any other conflicts we had. This was, as I predicted, met with a nice on how Annvarie only makes THESE EDITS because they're following STRICT GUIDELINES that I evidently don't, and I'm a liar for insinuating they revert '''all''' my edits. While I never actually accused Annvarie of reverting all my edits, here's , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , reversions Annvarie has made to things I've contributed to the article, some with good reason as they unknowingly violated certain policies/guidelines, but a large majority just due to personal disagreement. | |||
| Admittedly, I have in certain instances, which I hold my hands up to, but honestly, can anyone blame me for doing so? I just want to get this out of my hair at last because honestly, I'm so ] with treading on eggshells on that article. It's now 9am and I've had no sleep after being up with a nasty cold, so some of this may make no sense/sound overly cunty/or even stupid in some parts. I apologize in advance if this is the case. I'm content with a mutually-sided IBAN, I have no reason to revert Annvarie, they're a helpful editor, we just have difference of opinion...a lot, as hopefully they see me in the same way and won't request a one-sided ban. Hope to hear others opinions, christ this is going to drain the shit out of me, ] ] 09:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' it is clear that Annvarie is a WP:SPA even in comparison to Azealia911 but this is mentioned just for context. | |||
| :Personally I do not think that Ibans can ever work in situations in which editors work on the same content. I also have little knowledge of discography related issues and think that it may be worth pinging editors that have contributed to a relevant article, TP or Wikiproject to comment. However, having read through report related texts I think that issues of WP:OWN probably apply. A number of the edits and reversions seem to be about issues that didn't seem to me to have been of great consequence and I think that problems with the interactions may develop from problems arising from the actual edits. Issues here also relate to WP:AFG and WP:CIVIL. | |||
| :Perhaps a topic ban on one or both editors would be appropriate. The length of such a ban may better be decided by editors who better know the topic but even a very short ban would get something on record so that if there was recurrence in behaviour then platform would be provided for further steps to be taken. Something needs to be done to better promote collaborative editing here. ]] 09:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think an interaction ban would be all bad, at least for a trial run for a couple of weeks or-so, to see how it plays out. After which time, if the article history then starts re-clogging up with constant action-revert-action-revert like it is now, we could re-discuss a longer or permanent interaction ban. The only con of the trial IBAN would be a possible reversion of all edits made during the trial with the excuse of "The IBAN's over, I can edit how I like" | |||
| ::I'd respectfully oppose a topic ban, I don't think that would be fair on Annvarie, who you aforementioned is a SPA, considering a topic ban on Nicki Minaj would leave them with no pages to edit, with them having only edited Mianj-related articles. But by the same token, I don't think it'd be fair on myself either, considering topic bans aim to reduce disruptive edits, which I personally don't think I've made on the article. | |||
| ::I'm pinging {{u|Kww}}, an admin who dabbles with the page. Don't really know who else to alert to be honest. ] ] 12:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not inclined to issue either a topic ban ''or'' an interaction ban. Yes, I've noticed the two of you, and I think it's remarkable how petty both of you can be. Changing small text from 85% to 90%, and then ''edit warring'' over it? I'm more inclined to ban both of you from making purely cosmetic changes to discography articles, so that you stand a chance of learning how to interact over content.—](]) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Kww}} The change you reference was nothing cosmetic, not on the main view of the article anyway. <nowiki>{{small|Insert text}}</nowiki> sets at 85%, and was a way of decreasing mess to the array of <nowiki> <span style="font-size:85%;">Insert text<span></nowiki> I have no idea where you got 90% from. But really, a discography topic ban? That seems grossly unfair to both parties, rendering Annvarie unable to edit their primary edited page, which potentially leads to them just leaving the project all together, and unfair on myself, especially as I'm in the middle of a ], and responding to comments could get me reported. ] ] 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't suggest a discography topic ban: I suggested a ban on making cosmetic changes to discographies. —](]) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::What would that cover exactly? Could you give a few examples, relating to previous conflicts between myself and Annvarie? Sorry, it seems a tad vague, and could still cause problems at my FLC upon certain suggestions. Would it also just be NM discography? I edit many other discographies without issue from other editors. ] ] 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm about to go to work for the day. Let me mull it over.—](]) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure thing ] ] 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{nao}} I agree there is edit warring going on over some silly things, but in my few interactions with {{u|Azealia911}} (eg at AfD, I remembered the colorful signature) I've not noticed anything unpleasant in his/her attitude. Annvarie as stated is a clear SPA: all of his/her edits are to Nicki Minaj articles, with 90 percent being to the discography article. Azealia911 has more than 5,000 edits; Annvarie has fewer than 500. That means a significant percentage of Annvarie's edits are actually reverts; I think ] is going on. That Annvarie responded to something Azealia911 was writing on his/her sandbox indicates Annvarie is purposely tracking Azealia911's contributions for some reason. I have a thick skin but I would feel a bit troubled/violated if someone did that to me. That's just my 2 cents. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've placed a notice on ] talkpage, warning her that if she doesn't make comments here, I will place sanctions without her input. Let's leave this open a bit longer and give her a chance to respond.—](]) 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' First of all, I don't understand how my edit count translates to me making only reverts. I don't spend alot of my time on the internet so I when I do I edit on that discography article since I have a large interest in Nicki Minaj. I obviously don't consider myself an owner of the article, and my contributions to it are mostly chart/sales updates and new music additions. In my opinion, Azealia911 is overreacting since when I do revert their edit it's usually constructive and as they stated above, they took ownership of some of their mistakes. I take ownership for some of my wrong edits as well, but I don't make a big deal about my edits being reverted as long as its with good reason. When we have disagreements, we have third party involvements on the talk page and I stick with the consensus (Isn't this what Misplaced Pages advises it editors). To say I revert all their edits is absurd since I've reverted less than a quarter of their total edits to the page. I relation to responding to their sandbox (as implied above), we have had discussions on my talk page before in which we discussed this same topic. I can't believe I'm being accused of violating another editor when Azealia911 has repeatedly used foul language on MY talk page in simple discussions. To be honest, I don't know how to fix this supposed "issue" since I believe all my reverts (when necessary) are warranted but I have been a very constructive editor on that aricle.] (]) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The long - term block of all Hackney public libraries == | |||
| {{archive top|{{nac}} Come on, pull the other one. ] (]) 11:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| On Saturday someone said that these libraries had been blocked because of edit - warring to put original research into articles. The blocking administrator did not say this - it was raised for the first time on Saturday 24 days after the block. I work in Hackney and a lot of people apart from myself find it inconvenient not being able to edit during the working day, plus the people who live there can't edit in the evenings and at weekends either. | |||
| In view of what was said I went through the contribution record since the last block looking for more than three reverts in any one article in any 24 - hour period. I didn't find any. I also looked at the contributions in more detail. In the period between the blocks there were 566 edits, broken down as follows: | |||
| :Mainspace - 347 | |||
| :Project space - 69 | |||
| :Talkspace - 150. | |||
| There are clues as to who is doing the editing - one edit summary reads ''I am a descendant of Jules Van den Bossche and the daughter of John Van Den Bossche. | |||
| I also read the discussions on the talk page. There is a complaint that JoeSperrazza is fixated with a particular user (Joe hasn't edited since Saturday). There are two notices from Jc3s5h about alleged edit warring - on the second occasion he took it to the edit - warring notice board where it was rejected. Presumably the first complaint would have suffered the same fate. There is another notice from Jc3s5h alleging the insertion of synthesis and original research. That wasn't taken to a noticeboard and if it had been presumably would have suffered the same fate as the other two complaints. Per the comment of W Thomas at ] the IP's block does not relate to this incident. | |||
| Looking at the diffs of the edits, the IP spends a lot of time removing vandalism, correcting errors and adding fresh content to articles, besides giving helpful ref desk answers. None of the 566 edits is vandalism. Coming from a public IP that's awesome. Please reconsider this block. ] (]) 11:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, of course all of the Misplaced Pages editors in Hackney rely on their libraries to edit and can't possibly edit from their homes. This is the same user that is behind all those other IP's, AGAIN bringing up the nonsensical "six-month block" thread. Someone please block.--] (]) 11:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) I don't think you answered my question I asked you above: Who are you? Are you someone who would benefit from being reminded that editing with an IP is order to avoid scutiny of your edits is a violation of ]? And what do you have to say about? Why, in fact, are you bothering to try to get back your editing privileges when you know it ain't gonna work? Are you under the impression that Wikipedians are stupid? ] (]) 11:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Collapsed per ] ] ] 14:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Thomas thought an editor could travel from Hackney to Watford in half an hour, and I see nothing wrong in discussing an unjustified block. ] (]) 11:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The OP's question was "Why are Hackney's public libraries blocked long term?" Hackney's people are poor - they don't have the money to buy fancy computers to edit at home - that's why they use the library. They behave no worse than library users in the neighbouring boroughs - Haringey, Islington, Newham and Tower Hamlets and the City of London so why the discrimination? They suffer high rates of gun and knife crime, gang warfare (yes, Hackney has its murder mile) and a high proportion of people whose first language is not English. There is high unemployment and welfare dependency. One Christmas we were sitting in church at midnight mass with murder mayhem going on outside wondering what the world was coming to. The church is the largest parish church in London, named “the cathedral of the East End”, inspiring to visit, and the vicar was proud to leave it open all day for private devotion. Then fire raisers came in and set fire to the vestry and it was only good luck that a warden came by and was able to save it from total destruction. Needless to say, the church is now locked. | |||
| :People don't read the "Hackney Gazette" because the reports are too terrifying. Add in a housing crisis (ordinary homes sell for a million) and the absence of just one underground (subway) station and you can understand why we are fed up of being picked on. | |||
| :Socking is nothing to do with it. See BMK piling into an IP editor at ]. That editor is still happily editing away. ] (]) 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thomas, it may be pointless to you but not to over 200,000 Hackney residents. Why don't you leave this to somebody uninvolved? ] (]) 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not going to uncollapse as Thomas has threatened me with edit - warring sanctions. I'd just like to ask why GB fan is collapsing in Thomas' name. Let the discussion run. ] (]) 16:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Future Perfect at Sunrise has found a way to short - circuit this discussion by blocking the above editor citing "ban evasion". Unfortunately for him, the editor he cites was unbanned years ago. So we can now discuss his misconduct in blocking without going to SPI first, which, as explained on this page only a few days ago, is the way to go. ] (]) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{hat|Boring regularly repeated trolling by an IP-hopper collapsed per ] ] ] 10:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| === Behaviour of JoeSperrazza === | |||
| Joe has removed a post by 156.61.250.250 from the editor's own talk page. Editing other people's posts is a no - no. Also a no - no is making sock allegations on a talk page instead of at SPI, as explained here a few days ago. | |||
| === "The cathedral of East London" === | |||
| The Congregational Church at Stamford Hill was known as "the cathedral of North London". It was too big for its membership in a predominantly Jewish area (it was one of the largest Congregational churches in the country) and so services were moved to the lecture hall. The church was sold to the Metropolitan Borough of Hackney who knocked it down and built a library there instead. From there the readers happily edited Misplaced Pages until last month, when that stopped. Another beautiful church is the Round Chapel in Clapton, while if you walk down another street in Clapton you turn a corner and see a ruined Greek portico. Homerton has Sutton House, the finest mediaeval house in the country, while Hackney has the Empire, the country's last remaining music hall, restored to its former glory. | |||
| Hackney also has a severe drug problem. I was on a bus travelling north from the City and a woman asked me "Are you looking for somewhere to lay your head? Don't get off in Dalston, it's full of drug addicts and prostitutes". Sandringham Road was London's best known haunt of drug dealers. It was a focus of the 1981 race riots. Making the same bus journey one Sunday afternoon my bag was grabbed by somebody who immediately jumped off and ran. Crime centres on Ridley Road Market, where drugs are freely available. Meanwhile, the residents of Stoke Newington (postcode N16) have the highest rates for burglary insurance in the country and the highest incidence of burglaries. | |||
| All these places - Clapton, Dalston, Hackney, Homerton and Stoke Newington have modern libraries but the readers cannot edit Misplaced Pages thanks to the action of one administrator. This administrator has never sought to justify his action, he just blocks anyone who discusses it claiming they are an editor who is no longer banned. Meanwhile others (not necessarily administrators) demand ID from the readers, hat comments and make snide comments about the good faith of the participants. Let the discussion take place without these diversions and without intimidation. ] (]) 10:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thomas, please don't collapse this as you are mentioned in the thread. | |||
| ] (]) 10:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| GB fan, you blocked previously. You should not have blocked again, and certainly not before filing at SPI. You should not have both hatted and blocked. Finally, the claim that both conversations have been closed does not prevent any editor reopening them if she is of the opinion that insufficient time has been allowed for consensus to form. ] (]) 11:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Samwalton, please see my comment above. ] (]) 12:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == GalaxyFighter55 is being a jerk == | |||
| {{archivetop|ThatKongregateGuy CU blocked. ] (]) 02:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| So, He is harassing other wikipedians, and also I place warning templates on his talkpage, and he reverts my edit to make it look like I never warned him! Also, he posted this on my talk page out of nowhere, (Hey you (title) | |||
| STOP! GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 7:22 pm, 19 June 2015, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−5) | |||
| Can you please help me out. | |||
| P.S. My proof for harassing is deleting the warnings on his talk page, and being very rude to another wikipedian when that wikipedian informed him of something he did wrong on his talk page. ] (]) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not see any harassment here. Any editor may remove most talk page notices from there talk page anytime they want. There are very few notices that can not be removed and none of those are on GalaxyFighter55's talk page. Telling you to stop in that manner is rude but it is not harassment. -- ] ] 13:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Calling someone a “jerk” is not the best way to get the results you want. As noted above, removal of warnings is, in general, quite acceptable. If there are other issues, please identify them.--]] 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{u|ThatKongregateGuy}}, I see a couple of problems with your behavior. First, calling someone a jerk is a violation of ]. Next, I see you are a bit template-happy with GalaxyFighter55, and you template him with warnings just because you disagree with his edits. Next, he has every right to remove any warnings from any user, including you. On the other hand, you do NOT have the authority to revert him on his own talk page and reinstate your unwarranted templates. What should just be a content dispute is turning into a behavioral dispute, due to YOUR behavior. While neither of you may be saints, you are the one here complaining about him. There is an old proverb that says:''People who live in glass houses should not throw stones''. I suggest you read ] and take it to the article talk page, CALMLY. Otherwise, everyone's behavior (including yours) is on the table when you take a problem to ANI. ] - ] 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} The reporting editor should beware ] for their misuse of Galaxy's talk page. GalaxyFighter55 is a good editor. I've rarely had a problem with the quality of his edits. Since {{u|ThatKongregateGuy}} didn't provide any useful diffs, it's unclear what he means by {{tq|being very rude to another wikipedian when that wikipedian informed him of something he did wrong on his talk page}}. If he means , that is not an ideal response for sure, but it's a rare outburst for Galaxy. I don't think it warrants a trip to ANI, I'm sure if an admin reminds Galaxy to be civil and level-headed, the matter can be closed without any administrative sanctions. ] (]) 16:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == ] don't believe in ] == | |||
| {{archive top|Reclosing. We're not doing this again. IP blocked for threatening future disruption. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Administrators are going soft on him. | |||
| ] is turned into a big joke by ] | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| *Choice of words | |||
| *Unacceptable comment | |||
| {{collapse top|His comments during Administrator nomination of NeilN}} | |||
| #'''Oppose''' -- running before he can walk. This editor has as much to do with article content creation as I do with open heart surgery on the ] . Still, we seem to hand admin tools to just about anybody now so what would adding one more matter. ] is 70% full of bad-eggs. I just hope this user doesn't join their ranks. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 17:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #:I don't usually challenge those who oppose a candidate, but ]? Do you really have that little ] in this candidate? —] (]) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #:: and I apologise, I didn't mean for it to come out like that. What I meant was that he will be joining a load of bad-eggs already there. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #:::So you oppose a good egg joining the admin corps because only 30% of the current lot are good eggs? Funny reasoning. --] (]) 19:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #::::In your opinion he may be a good egg. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::This is your !vote, so perhaps you should state clearly what is your opinion, instead of this ambiguity. --] (]) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::My !vote is not up for discussion and I would request that you mind your own business. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::Welcome to Misplaced Pages where when you post something people will discuss it. RfA is no different. ] 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::You can discuss things in your flippant tone until the cows come home Chillum, but I shall be taking no further part in it. My views have been made so you can draw your own conclusions. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::A wise move. It's always a good idea to stop digging when you're in a hole. ] (]) 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::{{u|Nick|Whose}} digging? I'm simply not being baited into a block by commenting on another editor. Not everybody falls under the blanket of sycophancy you know. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *Refusing to accept ] | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ] (]) 15:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :All of these issues have been dealt with in previous threads. Repeating them serves no useful purpose. Recommend the ] ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Don't just close it without checking the detailed posts. '''I have gathered some new behavioral evidence which was not discussed before.''' Whenever you wikipedians say stop baiting, it summarizes "we are scared of {{u|Cassianto}}". don't bait him, he will bite you. | |||
| '''Is there any special rule for Cassianto to use disgusting words and phrases repeatedly.''' If administrators tells me, "'''Yes, my boy! we have created a rule that ] can say whatever he want, but don't bait him'''". Then I will edit the Misplaced Pages civility page. "''Everyone must be civil only ] can use extremely dirty language here''". Misplaced Pages has five pillars. But Cassianto has four pillars. We are scared of him. Please don't bait him. | |||
| If no one takes any action against Cassianto, then I will also behave like Cassianto and do the same thing. Then others will follow us. We will gather more followers citing the "'''Cassianto clause of violating civility'''" which explicitly states. If Cassianto can use derogatory, gross, dirty words, we can also use it.] (]) 16:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I made the point of notifying the user of the discussion regarding them on their talk page. ] (]) 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Please block Dthomsen8 as a malfunctioning bot == | |||
| {{User|Dthomsen8}} keeps making pointless changes to hundreds of talk pages such as . They serve no purpose and go against ] and ] (and ] rules in general). I , but they haven't changed their behaviour (e.g. ) or even replied to those concerns. | |||
| Someone please block them per ], or alternatively revoke their AWB access. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 17:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This isnt a bot so not sure why they would be blocked as a malfunctioning bot. ] (])(]) 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] is clear that editors doing bot-like edits are under the same restrictions as any bot would be. See ] in particular. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was more of a it isnt malfunctioning but what it was set out to do wasnt constructive. ] (])(]) 12:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Support'''; it's disruptive behavior and I've also complained at their userpage. ] (]) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * If there's a problem then xyr AWB access should be revoked. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * User hasn't edited in almost 24 hours. Give them a chance to respond. If they start up again without responding, I'll yank the AWB. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 12:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * What's the problem with ? It looks like a constructive change IMHO (switching a project template to a correctly more specific template). Maybe not something I'd bother to make myself, clearly not one you'd make, but that's no reason to prevent Dthomsen8 if they wish to do it. ] (]) 12:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] and ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 15:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: More obviously, . WP Journals is, I'm surprised to find, a redirect to a WP ''Academic'' Journals. As such, then yes, NOTBROKEN would apply. Not that I'd seek a block over it though. | |||
| ::: I would also note the we have a ''vast'' amount of pointless cosmetic and sub-cosmetic (invisible code-only whitespace stripping) 'bot and script editing and any challenge to chat gets seen as hostile edit-warring. We have far worse things than Dthomsen8 to worry about (or not). ] (]) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As the editor being discussed, I decided to sleep on the question and meanwhile do no edits at all. I have decided that I will stop using AWB for WikiProject changes, but I will note that many of the updates were adding WikiProject templates for other projects such as subjects and countries of Academic Journals. --] (]) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for your considered response. Have you read the COSMETICBOT policy linked above and are you happy to abide by it? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The problem is not WikiProject changes in general, the problem is doing ''purely cosmetic edits'' that clutter watchlists for no good reason. It's entirely fine to do cosmetic changes like {{tl|WP Journals}} → {{tl|WikiProject Academic Journals}} if you're also doing ''something else'' to the page, like adding another WikiProject Banner, or updating an article assessment. I'm also concerned it took an ANI thread to get you to think about those edits when the problem was pointed out to you, and that you , but I'll let MSGJ and others deal with that if it becomes a more serious problem. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree that the cosmetic edits are annoying: they uselessly increase the amount of diffs that the humans maintaining the articles have to examine, and the size of the article's edit history. Sometimes they also try to impose the bot operator's editorial choices on the article (changing one template to another when both are valid) though I don't know if that's happened here. So I'd support the request that these edits stop--thanks. ] (]) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't really see these as problematic or even cosmetic edits. Project templates on talk pages are not wiki links in articlespace, the intended object of ], if anything ] is closer, but even that isn't appropriate. These talk pages have little content, and few watchers. The edits are therefore not cluttering many watch lists, nor extending huge page histories. They remove hidden redirections, avoid Easter eggs, improve the utility of what links here and improve the category allocations, so that academic journals are less likely to be conflated with journals in the sense of newsmagazines and the like. Would we prefer that the edits include a token talk page post to meet some wiki-legalistic constraint that serves to impede good work? ] <small>]</small> 21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:All4chats == | |||
| {{archivetop|result={{nac}} The user's user page was deleted by ]. If any further actions are needed per ], please create a subsection to this thread. ] (]) ] 04:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say ] isn't here to build an encyclopedia. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've deleted their userpage as a clear copyright violation. The insertion of the link seems really unrelated. I mean maybe they are a troll, but it just seems really random. As I'm not sure what is really going on, I'll leave the question of a block to someone else, but expect one will be coming. ]] 18:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| An admin is needed ASAP on this, requesting move protection. Is there a way to restore the title ]? - ] (]) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the cleanup, admins! Could someone also get rid of some of the trollish redirects, if there are any left? Thanks! ] (]) 00:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dylann Storm Roof was the original article title, the talk-page is also messed up still and yes thanks admins. - ] (]) 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've blocked the offending account, deleted all the problematic redirects, and rev deleted the move vandalism to hid the possible BLP issues. Also move protected the article. Anything else? --]] 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well ] is calling the subject "Dylann Storm Roof" but Dylann Roof works too if people want it that way. Thanks again for the admin help all around. - ] (]) 00:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Nihonjoe}} also helped with the cleanup. --]] 00:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes thanks to him as well =) - ] (]) 00:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, I tried to, anyway. Jayron32 was too speedy. {{smiley}} ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Was ] move protected? I tried adding the template but found I could still move the page. - ] (]) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It has been now. I think all the different ways it was being moved made it hard to tell what was protected and what was not. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yeah I guessed, thanks again. - ] (]) 00:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Clap along if you feel like a Storm without a Roof. Or is it the other way round? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| * A ] campaigner, {{user|JaskaPDX}}, is corrupting the entry by deleting information & facts which he doesn't like. ] (]) 01:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see a red linked user talk page, and no discussion on the article talk page. Have you attempted to discuss the content in question? Also, notifying an editor when you report them here is required. ]] 01:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::However, the notice board you need to move to is ] where all can blister their fingers as the polemics rage. This is not the correct venue for the conversation you want to have. It looks to me like the guy you are reporting has a fairly good case, actually. ]]] 02:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I posted a more detailed description of this issue to the page you suggested: . | |||
| ::::Individuals that do not understand our political process should not be updating this page. The article is too important, influences too many people, and can have a real affect on voting in the United States. If a politically-savvy admin can lock this down and manage this page, that is probably the best solution. Again, I'm not intimately familiar with Misplaced Pages so I once more apologize if this is an improper venue. ] (]) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :*You have no proof as to if he's a Bernie Sanders campaigner as much as I don't have proof you're a Hillary Clinton campaigner, I would hope these discussions would be kept mature and without logical fallacies. ] (]) 20:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * The RSN discussion is not helpful and I'm leaning towards a ] block against JaskaPDX if the editor wants to use the site just for advocacy. Once the game of "only people who agree with me have the right to edit there" starts, it never ends well. -- ] (]) 11:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yawn. That isn't what I suggested at all. I'm asking that an established moderator lock down the page and manage it themselves. Not me, because clearly an interest in the transparency in the integrity of our democratic processes are, according to you, advocacy of a particular candidate. Thanks for clearing that up because that is at the core of this issue. Your entries with the non-citations have been undone. I refer you to the above comment by Jusdafax. ] (]) 14:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Two quick thoughts: First, it might just be because I am Canadian, but I really don't see much value in a borderline indiscriminate list of random people who support a candidate. I mean, it's nice and all to know Ted Danson is still alive, but, ''really''? (As a related aside, is it just me, or does the "individuals" section of Martin O'Malley's list seem totally desperate?) Second, JaskaPDX, it would be helpful if, instead of re-reverting when people disagree, that you go to the article's talk page and explain your reasoning. Hopefully other interested people will be willing to fairly evaluate your concerns, and you theirs. ]] 15:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the comment. In fact, I did enter this in the talk section of that article, but it was promptly ignored and the poorly cited names were again published. It's clear, and you make the case with the Ted Danson entry, that the Clinton supporters are trying to drown out the other candidates by sheer volume, sources be damned. Luck you, I wish we had the Canadian political process; this is really ridiculous] (]) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please don't put words in my mouth. I made no statements regarding the actions of "Clinton supporters". I used Danson merely as an obvious example of "why should anyone care what they think?" from the list. Mia Farrow would have been an equally valid example. ]] 15:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My apologies, that isn't my intention. I don't want to suggest that this was your position - it most certainly was not. I am extrapolating what you said about Danson and why, I believe, him and so many other celebrities are included in this article. The important thing, it seems, is that the list of endorsements looks extensive. In that respect, I believe that's what the Clinton supporters are up to which is why they simply copy/paste Congressional names from a citation without sources. I side with you on the relevancy of celebrity endorsement, but I know some others may have a differing opinion so I'll let someone else make that decision. Again, sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. Not my intention whatsoever. ] (]) 15:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)] (]) 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Update''' JaskaPDX has again removed dozens of endorsements from the article titled "Here are the senators who have already endorsed Hillary Clinton" . I agree that the page is a bit oddball but it's a legitimate page that's part of every US election cycle. -- ] (]) 19:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* OK, I would like {{U|JaskaPDX}} to explain that edit (I don't see any evidence that this has been discussed at either JaskaPDX's Talk page, or at the Talk page of the article). It looks to me like all of the removed endorsements were sourced. I suppose a justification for removing them might be if they came from a ]. Otherwise, I can't see how the removal of sourced content like that is justified... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That CNN article is not a primary source of endorsements and should therefore not count as a legitimate source for endorsements. It was clearly established in the talk page of the article that the women cited in the article did NOT endorse Clinton, but rather in a PRIVATE card urged her to run in the elections. ] (]) 20:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The CNN article in question is . If what you say is true, can you produce a counter-source to buttress your claims that these aren't "real" endorsements?... Anything short of that, and this source looks legit to me as a reference to include those names in the list. (Full disclosure here: Very few people care less about this primary than I do, so I literally don't have a "horse" in this race, and am simply looking at the sources here...) --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As a matter of fact, counter-sources were already posted in the talk page of the article and discussed a while ago. I care as much about the sources as you do. This is what was in the talk page:<br>"Can this really be considered an endorsement? Supporting a candidate is not the same as asking them to run, and there is proof that not all these women are so enthusiastic about endorsing her directly. "When Stephanopoulos pushed a second time, asking if Warren would endorse a Clinton 2016 run, Warren responded, "Hillary is terrific." Close, but not an endorsement yet." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2014/0428/Elizabeth-Warren-Almost-an-endorsement-of-Hillary-Clinton-2016-video) & "Boxer told ABC News she is an enthusiastic champion for Clinton 2016, but added, “I can only speak for myself. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to describe their views.”" (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/women-dems-senate-endorse-hillary-clinton-president-article-1.1501771) 201.196.246.146 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)"<br>Additionally, there's this article... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-hopes-hillary-clinton-makes-2016-run-but-declines-to-endorse-her/ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::: Great – you can probably knock Warren out of the list with that. But what you've put here would not even knock Boxer out of the list – to any objective eye, what Boxer said sounds like an endorsement. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The important part is that she says she can't speak for others, which indicates that not all other women are endorsing her. You are trying to legitimize an untrustworthy source by telling me to look for specific articles that contradict it on every single name. I have shown you some proof as to why that article isn't a good source, let's stop the immature discussion and get onto solutions. For one, it would be much better if we used direct sources of each person/group's endorsements instead of an indirect source like that CNN article. Other than that, it would be great if we followed the rules established for the Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Endorsement_Rules ] (]) 21:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Note: You have in no way shown that the CNN source is "untrustworthy" in toto (far from it, in my view); what you have maybe shown is that the CNN is "''sloppy''" in some of the particulars. That doesn't rule it out as a source, in my view. What it likely shows is those in CNN's list may need a ''second'' confirmatory source (or possibly a second source showing where the CNN source might be erroneous in a particular instance here and there)... Basically, the CNN source should stand unless another source can be produced to show where it's in error. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: It mixes endorsements with non-endorsements and in itself does not hold as a verifiable source. The fact that it would need a second source to confirm means we could just use that second source as the only source anyways. If CNN suddenly starts saying that a house representative is endorsing Clinton in that article, then you would be asking for anyone who doubts it to find an article about that same representative saying something AGAINST Clinton which is not likely. This article should not be used. ] (]) 22:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Thank you. You were much more concise and more diplomatic but 100% correct. I visited this page just as a curiosity and I sensed right away that something was wrong when I had to scroll all those names to see the other candidates. It was strange because I've only read about a handful of individuals making public pronouncements in Hillary's favor. Further, there were names on there that I know for a fact wouldn't be backing Hillary if this race gets close. And therein lies the root of the problem. This page creates the false impression that the Democratic Party is a monolith and everyone is united behind one candidate. It not only tilts this page in one person's direction, but it serves to dissuade voting by making that individual look like the presumptive nominee. ] (]) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think human beings have enough capability to spot BS when they see it. Political endorsements are public events. The whole point of a political endorsement is to get that information out to as many voters as possible. If these were truly endorsements, you wouldn't need to source them from a citation without detail. Use some common sense. Are you suggesting that I need to go out and find a published source that says Rep. (flll in the blank) doesn't support Hillary? Give it up.] (]) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Uh, really? So no one has ever endorse a candidate with just a printed press release? I'm must be misremembering all the zillions of times that has happened before... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then feel free to use that press release as the citation. That would be fine. This is the entire point I'm trying to make. Press releases from a Congressional office is exactly the sort of material that would qualify as a proper endorsement. Or are you suggesting that a Congressperson would hand CNN a printed copy without making that release available in electronic form on their website or social media pages? ] (]) 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| CNN is garbage and why are you removing the AfL CIO from Sanders? The Hillary campaigners are pathetic. Reddit has already been informed, we will not sit back and watch the right wing smearing continue. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Troll much? (Please, note also: from the IP in question. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's not that far from "heading a fundraiser for Hillary" or "endorsing Hillary to run" sourced to a CNN article titled "Here are the senators who have already endorsed Hillary Clinton" does not mean they endorse her. It's just about grinding down every single link. -- ] (]) 21:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Straight from the horse's mouth: <blockquote>We call on the AFL-CIO, union members and working people everywhere to unite behind Bernie Sanders and elect the President America's workers desperately need...The South Carolina AFL-CIO Executive Board strongly urges the AFL-CIOto support Bernie Sanders 2016 and his campaign to become the nominee of the Democratic Party for president</blockquote>https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LocalUnionResolutionUrgingSupportforBernie2016.pdf But maybe I should check and see if CNN concurs.] (]) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I really don't think you want to go down the "CNN is not a ]" road – I really don't think that'll go well for you... If you want to prove your case, you're going to have to get your own ''reliable'' sources to counter whatever the sources you don't like are saying. That's the only path for you here. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When a CNN article doesn't have any sources to back it up, we can call BS. There are no footnotes or references to any of these endorsements and I think it's pretty obvious that, at the very least, the female "endorsements" were anything but. Regardless, I don't need a source that says "Representative X does not endorse a particular candidate when the citation used for said endorsement is not sourced itself and was published weeks before other candidates even launched their campaigns. At some point, common sense must prevail.] (]) 22:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* You're hilarious. The AFL-CIO discussion belongs ]. I've explained my reasoning there. I'm not going to re-hash the fact that they just asked for an endorsement to be done by the full AFL-CIO which was rejected. At ], I note that you removed Senator Durbin, who the CNN article reported had "Headlined a June 2014 fundraiser organized by Ready for Hillary", and linked directly to which states "Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has added himself to the long list of high-profile Hillary Clinton presidential bid supporters" which I find to mean an endorsement. You ignore the source it links to and have yet to explain on what basis does headlining a fundraiser for someone's campaign ''isn't'' evidence that they endorse the candidate (beyond just because you don't think CNN is a reliable source and your failure to actually the links contained within the article). As I said before, it's clearly about dancing around so you can grind away every link to the candidates you don't like so your guy looks better. Precisely what we don't need here. -- ] (]) 22:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I've already written and apologized that I removed him accidentally. It was an easy mistake to make considering his name was buried between 20 others that had no such citation. You're going to have to try better than that. And BTW, your ALF-CIO bit makes absolutely no sense. If that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is. Words have meaning and the AFL-CIO sent this out in a press release, about as official as it gets. And again, you are knocking me while continuing to refer to an article that wasn't sourced itself. Just because CNN appears on the URL doesn't make it a good piece of journalism. Your rubbish about grinding away at a candidate is exactly what is wrong with the political process. That is, people who see this as some sort of game pitting two people against each other, a soap opera. This is not what our democracy is supposed to be about. CNN cheapens it with irresponsible journalism and it seems we have a handful of people that aren't able to be intellectually honest enough to recognize that this particular article has serious flaws. This isn't a game, these elections, and I'm tired of it getting referred to in ways like grinding away at the other candidate. If Clinton has all these endorsements, then the source material shouldn't be had to find. She doesn't and that is why her supporters, or whomever put this up, didn't take one look at this and go elsewhere. Either they were completely lazy and didn't bother to check if any of that was true or they did check, found nothing, and tried to use this as a credible citation. ] (]) 22:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: You're ridiculous. A portion of the AFL-CIO says (via a press release from the campaign) they ''encourage'' the main AFL-CIO ''to endorse'' Sanders (because they '''can't''' endorse him themselves) and the main AFL-CIO says the South Carolina one ''can't'', they take it back and the AFL-CIO ''doesn't'' endorse either candidate (which makes sense since they aren't going to turn before the primary is finished) but you want to include that as an endorsement of Sanders somehow while a CNN article titled "Senators who endorse Hillary Clinton" includes a mention of Durbin, states that Durbin is leading fundraisers for her and links to other articles describing him as a support and you still claim that the article is came from is not a reliable sources and (falsely) that it didn't include any source/links to other articles and that we shouldn't include those anyways since they endorsed her before she officially ran and that's only endorsements to run for President not actual endorsements to be President and so on. Again, there's a talk page for a reason so argue it there not here. Since you removed the entire CNN article under at least one false premises, do you care to go back and put the ones you'll agree with or do I have to hunt down each name one by one only to have you remove them all again and refuse to actually discuss them until you're cornered about it? You're either here honestly to report on the endorsements or an advocate who doesn't belong here. -- ] (]) 00:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Except for you, everyone thinks the article is not sourced well. And don't fret, I'll be taking some time and looking through each and every one.] (]) 00:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Try Arbitration Enforcement=== | |||
| There is no question that the 2016 US Presidential campaign involves American politics after 1933. Why not take disruptive editing to ]? ] (]) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Good idea. -- ] (]) 00:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Unauthorized deletion of backlog in Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism? == | |||
| {{archive top|{{nac}} Nothing of note here. ] (]) 06:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| On 22:39 30 May 2015 the user Orduin {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism|664754855|664752780|removed several entries}} from the backlog in ] with the comment "remove declined reports not touched in over a half hour". | |||
| My question is: Was this an authorized deletion? As far as I can see Orduin is not even an administrator. | |||
| I ask this, since my complaint about the administrator(!) Onel5969 was removed with it. Or could it be that Orduin camouflaged it in order to protect Onel5969? Or am I simply too wary? | |||
| Thanks for a short answer! -- ] (]) 03:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A check of your shows no reports to AIV as far back as June 7 (I didn't have the time to go back farther). Next, Onel5969 is not an admin. Thus, you will need to explain further what this is all about. Last you did not notify either {{u|Orduin}} or {{u|Onel5969}} about this thread which is one of the requirements when posting here. ]|] 03:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I wrote, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism|664743850|664743502|it was on 30 May 2015}}. -- ] (]) 04:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The thing you didn't do was inform the editors in question. ]|] 04:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *All the removed reports had been properly declined by an admin. There is no written instruction that I am aware of regarding how long declined requests should remain at ] before removal. While removals have historically been done by admins, I don't see a compelling reason why that needs to be the case, assuming all that is being removed are reports already declined by admins. That said, I personally leave them for a couple hours, and I think that is pretty typical, mostly to give the reporter a better chance to see the decline reason. I think there is some movement to pinging the reporter when we decline, so that will reduce the need to leave them there very long. ]] 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, but how can I see that the request have been declined? -- ] (]) 04:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::May 30? and you ask about it on more than 3 weeks later. Perhaps you should make it clear what this really is all about. ]|] 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since your accusation is that one editor covered up for another perhaps you could provide evidence for that. Looks like a ] situation and this thread should be closed unless evidence is provided to refute this. ]|] 04:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do not accuse it. It's a simple '''question''' ("Was it a authorized deletion?"). And when you are not able to read the starting text "On 22:39 30 May 2015", that's hardly my inability. :-) -- ] (]) 04:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* {{Reply to|Monty845}} Don't declined AIV reports get archived somewhere? Or does that only happen with the approved AIV requests? (Or not at all in either case?!)... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|IJBall}} It turns out that the OP was Onel5969 for removing posts by the OP on Onel5969's talk page. a) that is not vandalism and b) it is allowed per ]. I thought this should be swiftly closed before. This has confirmed that. ]|] 04:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::It should be added that an AIV report that has no merit can be removed. Remember that '''critera 1''' for reporting there is "The edits of the reported user must be '''obvious vandalism'''". ZH8000's post there shows an obvious inability to understand that. ]|] 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] - POV pushing by group of editors == | |||
| {{archive top|status=closed|result=Complainant now blocked for ] at ] for 1 week by ]. (We can now resume our far more important efforts to stop that scoundrel ]!) {{resize|70%|I wonder if anyone will "get" this...}} {{nac}} --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| The page is already under discretionary sanctions. | |||
| I tried to contest a view of British constructed caste system in India, by removing it from lead section ( The then third paragraph) | |||
| Was staunchly opposed by a group of editors ( {{user|VictoriaGrayson}} {{user|Ogress}} {{user|Kautilya3}} in spite of my request them to on their talk pages and in the article talk page to engage in a discussion and reach a consensus on including it in the lead. ( Not in the body of the article)<br> | |||
| Discussion ensued and no consensus was reached. For my part there was no citation of a comprehensive review from a reliable source for the wide spread acceptability of the claim.<br> | |||
| I was told no consensus was required for an already existing sentences as it was there for quite long by user Kautilya3. Though I cannot agree to it,I did not have any option, as by the editor that was the Policy. | |||
| I added a clean up tag and gave reasons. Attempted an extensive review of the article on why there is a suspected POV pushing in the talk page of the article. The users Kautilya3 and {{user|Joshua Jonathan}} acknowledged the review. | |||
| Meanwhile, JJ pushed the contested claim into opening sentence of the article, too crudely. ( In addition to the already existing mention of it in the second paragraph.( Former third) | |||
| * I reverted and User VictoriaGrayson reverted - without engaging my talk page explanation why I reverted JJs edits. | |||
| * I again reverted and user Ogress came and reverted. No engaging on talk page. | |||
| * I again reverted and user Kautilya3 has reverted, again no engaging but warning and threats of blocks. | |||
| None of these editors had something to say to the discussions in the talk page and they did not revert the POV pushing by JoshuaJonathan into the first statement despite no consensus. ( I am ''not'' talking about the consensus attempted for removing the statement from lead here, as that statement still exist all the while) | |||
| The disputed claim is there in the lead of the article in two statements of the lead now. 1. First sentence of the article. 2. Second paragraph first sentence. ( The first dispute for which no consensus was evolved was for for the no#2 mentioned. Meanwhile, user JJ '''added''' the no#1 here. ) | |||
| For me, this is a clear attempts of using technicality to push a POV and by seeing the nature of editors' behavior a concerted attempt. | |||
| I seek help. | |||
| ]<sup>]</sup> 08:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Just refer to .]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Unfortunately, this editor needs some serious help in understanding Misplaced Pages policies. He expects that everybody should try and convince ''him'' about material sourced to multiple reliable sources, and reach a "consensus" with ''him''. Otherwise, he thinks he has a right to remove the material! I don't have words to describe this ridiculous state of affairs. - ] (]) 08:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm unclear why the editor feels it is appropriate to take me to Admin because I reverted his removal of strongly-cited material. And I protest strongly his claims that I ignored the talk page as we have been discussing this for quite a while. ] ] 09:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Adding Diffs.<br> | |||
| 1. JJs edits, substantial on the contested content, dine clandestinely. ( Clandestine because the edit summery says :(→top: Correction/shifting emphasis; see ])". All the while mentioning nothing about any new reference material to say conclusively that ".., but was fully developed by the British Raj". Secretive indeed because the debates of talk page shows, JJ never took hardline position as done by VictoriaGrayson and Kautilya3. See the version of talk page where JJ talks about on 20 June where as h] | |||
| I think there is enough and more evidence to suggest that users JJ, Kautilya3, Ogress, and VictoriaGrayson are working in unison to push the POV that British developed caste system in India, without citing adequate secondary RS or otherwise involving in talk page discussions and helping to reach a consensus.<br> | |||
| Multiple editors have raised concerns over this issue of post-colonial scholarship's hypothesis being taken as a fact that the 'colonialism developed caste system in India.'<br> | |||
| ] It has been tried to explain why there is a suspected POV pushing. None of these editors have engaged the concern of citing OR for the disputed content and tried to develop the article further on the lines of POV already alleged.<br> | |||
| As the page is already under discretionary sanctions appropriate sanctions may be applied to ensure NPOV. | |||
| ]<sup>]</sup> 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :"Working in unison"? Okay, I'll try to give a serious response: | |||
| :* "Clandestine": I've provided an edit-summary and a link to an explanation; this was done in response to three almost new editors, who raised concerns about the merger-proposal (''my'' merger-proposal, to be sure); | |||
| :* I've provided multiole reliable sources, i addition to those which were already there; | |||
| :* I've added information on the origins of the ''jati''-system . | |||
| :I'm afraid that if there's a POV-problem here, the problem it at your side, going against a concensus by multiple editors based on multiple reliable sources. If you think that the British did not have a decisive influence on the caste-system as it exists today, then please provide reliable sources, instead of accusing multiple authors of POV-pushing and "working in unison." Consider also the possibility that what you perceive as such, is the result of a shared concensus on what the sources. Best regards, ] -] 14:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::NB: ''"mentioning nothing about any new reference material"'' - is this a serious comment? You think you can remove referenced material because the edit-summary does not say that references were added? And if three different editors revert you in a ow, could it be then that maybe there's a problem with your edits? ] -] 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I do not see in the edit summary you mentioning about inserting the claim of ' development of caste system'. What was the need of re-assertion by inserting the already disputed content into opening statement of the article is my question. Especially there is a dispute which is devoid of a consensus? We can discuss the issue and will definitely engage in talk page. But while we do that, you edit and insert more content like this ,(I say secretively as you have not mentioned in edit summary, nor in talk page), and later say no consensus required for already existing comment? By the way, about the content, I did not get any link or a quote from a RS about reliability and widespread acceptance of Dirks' claim. It still exist (as per the talk page discussions) a hypothesis postulated by NB Dirks. If there is widespread acceptance, please quote the review of NB Dirks which reviews the post-colonial scholarship either critically or validating such a claim. See talk page for a reply for your comment there. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Zwart review article is exactly that. It was discussed multiple times. But this ANI board is not for content matters.]<sup>]</sup> 15:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Zwart is not a review. He uses Dirks claim to postulate something else. Zwart refers Dirks, in a couple of sentences, and he does not review Dirks postulate. This has been said multiple times. Which part you don't understand? Yes, this is ANI. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Guess I have cleared the confusion about what I said about summary already. I was not reverting because of you not mentioning in the edit summary. 1. There was a content dispute. 2. We were party to discussions. 3. You again add the same content, to emphasis, again to the lead, to the opening sentence. Is it civil? ( The not mentioning part is to show a possible POV. Had you mentioned it, I would have reverted it immediately, which would have made the revert much more stronger.}]<sup>]</sup> 15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ABEditWiki is still edit warring. I think he broke 3rr.]<sup>]</sup> 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I am surprised no admin is taking any view? If I am wrong, just tell me that, so that I need not waste my time and of course others time (may be POV pushers.. still editors!)Cheers ]<sup>]</sup> 15:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Since ABEditWiki has been blocked for 1 week, can we get this discussion closed and/or hat-noted?]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Problematic content in protected article == | |||
| {{hat|Now moot. ] 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] was full-protected due to an edit-war. It has however been protected with the ] and possibly BLP-violating material in ("''"Transracial", a term sometimes used in discussing Rachel Dolezal''") Could an admin have a look at this and remove it if they think fit. I am involved otherwise I would do it straight away. ] 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you discussed the matter with the protecting admin and sought consensus for your views on the talk page? I tell you frankly, I personally would be very reluctant to get involved in that, especially if my ass is out a mile. I have no desire to be the latest victim of a public hating in the pages of the media and on Facebook.--] (]) 09:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: This isn't a big deal, it's a hardly-ever-viewed dab page which a few editors are trying to cause an issue with. I'm simply trying to get a ''possible'' BLP problem out of a full-protected article. ''Then'' it can be discussed. Read Dolezal's article - the subject rejects all reference to "transracialism". ] 09:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Don't worry. All involved editors have now achieved consensus on the talkpage to remove it anyway, so I have done so. ] 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Elephant Talk page == | |||
| {{archivetop| indef'd by Tokyogirl79 with talk page access revoked. ] (]) 02:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could an admin please have a look at the Talk page of the ] article. There is an editor there who is making edits (could be called a rant) totally unrelated to the article and has twice deleted my postings to the thread with no explanation. Thanks in advance.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 09:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll take care of this. ]] 09:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{ping|DrChrissy}} I'm going to delete the edit history (since it has nothing to do with elephants), which will remove one of your remarks. Let me know if you are not OK with this. I'm also going to block the editor as being ] to positively edit Misplaced Pages. ]] 09:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I'm perfectly ok with that. Thanks for the help.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 09:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've removed a lot of their posts from other pages that were sort of the same: they picked a topic and made it seem like they were posting about the article topic, then spun off into a rant about their personal beliefs. They claimed that they didn't realize what they were doing, but at some point their removal of your edits seemed pretty deliberate. If they'd been editing a prior version of the article then it'd have stopped them, but their edit shows that it's most likely that you were interrupting their rant, which they didn't appreciate. ]] 09:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had not realised they were editing other pages! Thanks for your swift action.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 09:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *At this point I think I'm going to revoke their talk page access since they're not really interested in the fact that they were blocked for making OT forum posts and (sighs) are instead trying to use their talk page as a place to defend their OT personal opinion that was on the elephant talk page. ]] 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I ended up revoking it, especially after they made a comment that accused ] of doing this as a personal attack. I honestly can't see where they'd have ever positively contributed to Misplaced Pages, considering that they ignored the repeated reminders that Misplaced Pages was not a forum and didn't show where they'd even registered that they were blocked - something that most editors would have picked up on by now. ]] 10:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Clearly either a troll or incompetent. Homosexual elephants - what next? However I'm not sure it met the threshold for RD3, not that it really matters. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Gay octopuses, perhaps? Queer penguins? ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just for the record, the barred user has contacted me by email through wikipedia. They have asked reasonable questions, but in a POV way. I won't reply as I do not wish them to know my e-mail address, but I thought I would let people know.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == User-page about ] == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Deleted.] 10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Are user-pages like that at {{U|Jesserey7}} allowed? The users only edits on WP, so far, were to create this page. I have given them a warning that their userpage may not be acceptable. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 10:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Unacceptable. ] (]) 10:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Gone. ] applies (and possibly ]). ] 10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ==Strange concentration of new accounts on new, obscure article== | |||
| Yesterday I blocked {{user|StevePhoenixAZ}} for being a spam-only account (inserting links to a commercial sites like ). One of the articles they had edited was ], which was created on 6 June. I cleaned up this article as it was of interest (being football-related), but today I happened to check the edit history and spotted some rather odd goings-on. Despite being only two weeks old and very obscure, it has been edited by numerous new accounts – over 20 so far – with many of them using similar edit summaries ("grammar" is repeated often). One ({{user|DanielHolmes01}}) has already been blocked by another admin for being a vandalism-only account, and some others have indulged in vandalism. However, some have also been positively productive. I can't really work out what's going on here. Is it an article that's been picked as some kind of training ground for a sockfarm of some kind? Other thoughts/views would be appreciated. Cheers, ] ]] 10:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Appears similar to ]. —]''']''' 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *] is in the same group of editors that was reported a few weeks ago at ]. No activity was taken about the overall problem then, and the disruptive edits to a small number of obscure articles has continued. The most ''likely'' explanation is that it is an unregistered school group, though it's suspicious that at least one sockpuppet of ] is among the accounts. —] (]) 10:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Return of an IP troll as ]== | |||
| {{archive top|{{nac}} Blocked by WikiLeon. ] (]) 13:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could some action be taken against an SPA vandal leaving trash messages on talk pages, signing them as {{u|Chillum}}, who it obviously isn't. I suspect it is the work of the same troll who opened ] yesterday and was, in all probability, the IP hopper involved in ]. | |||
| Three on Cassianto's talk page: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| One on mine: | |||
| * | |||
| Thanks - ] (]) 11:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I see that this user has already (just) been blocked. We'll see which guise they'll return in next. Many thanks to {{u|WikiLeon}} for the block. - ] (]) 11:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Geez, everyone wants to be me. ] 12:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] (]) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User:86.164.37.238 == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Moot, as the filer was found to be DarknessShines2 at SPI. ] - ] 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Is making attacks on me, can I delete it? ] (]) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Grow up and stop pov pushing for once and stop wasting admin time on trivial matters. ] (]) 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::From what I can see everyone involved in the "discussions" on ] is trying to push nationalist POV, for one side or the other, and to me Pakistani POV is no better than Indian POV or any other POV. I have just posted on the talk page (which has been on my watch list for a very long time) and told everyone to calm down, and comment on content, not other editors, I have also posted an NPA-caution on ] for their repeated unconstructive posts about {{U|The last Watch}}. ] ] 16:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've already blocked the IP for a week for POV/disruption (in addition to the attacks), and on the fence about blocking The last Watch for POV. It is sad, but it seems that a heavy hand is the only way to deal with these problems. He's got around 40 edits and already in a world of controversy, so I don't have much faith he will hit 100 before he gets blocked. ] - ] 17:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{ping|Dennis Brown}} His problem is that he's alone against a whole bunch of pro-Pakistani editors, both registered user accounts and a couple of newly arrived throw-away IPs, doing at least as much POV-pushing for their side, which makes his part in it seem worse than it is. And his opponents are tag teaming against him, which is how The last Watch got blocked as an IP (getting tricked into violating 1RR on ] while reverting an unsourced pro-Pakistani edit on that article). ] ] 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*To clarify my stand here I want to point out that POV-pushing has no place here, no matter which side it's for, and that I have been fighting POV-pushing here for years, no matter what the pushing was for or against, but there seems to be too much focus on one side in this "battle", the pro-Pakistani side in this sudden flare-up is at least equally guilty of POV-pushing, and should IMHO be treated/punished equally for their part in it. ] ] 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*I ask, and ask now again, please tell how edits I make are POV? Noone say how? ] (]) 17:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I haven't gone through all of your edits, but your edits on ] adding sourced material about human rights violations seem to me to be far less POV than the edits of your opponents who repeatedly remove every mention of such violations. Your initial edits added too much material, giving it ] weight, but having a short summary and a pointer to an existing article about it here on en-WP is not wrong, while totally removing every mention of it IMHO '''is''' POV. ] ] 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thank you, I will go learn undue now ] (]) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Warnings not going beyond level 1? == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=No Action|result=Not a matter for this board. ] seems the appropriate venue to report/discuss. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 04:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Okay so earlier I put a level 2 warning vandalism for a IP as a level 1 was done in the past 24 hours but for some reason it showed up as a level 1 still. Is something going on with the warnings and its not going beyond level 1? ] (]) 21:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Got a diff for this handy?... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem was discussed earlier at ]. The failure to collapse got fixed at around 20:17 when I posted my remark. What time did you post the warning that failed to bump to level 2? Maybe it is fixed now also. -- ] (]) 22:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, but wasn't as yu can see. Something wrong with the formatting too. ] (]) 22:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You better post this problem at ] please. -- ] (]) 22:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : See also ]. --] (]) 23:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay here is one that just happened (was warning for removal of a BLP prod and a maintenance template for level 1 and then level 2): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Chrisqa&action=history ] (]) 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't even do a ARV for the user! ] (]) 01:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seems like stuff like Request Page Protection is even having to be done manually! ] (]) 01:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yep''' We have a problem. I had to add a level4 warning by putting in the code manually. Everything else is going in at level 1 no matter what you click on. -] (]) 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Indeffed user Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob socking and block-evading again from IPs and under new account name == | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=Newly minted sock account indef blocked, and IP sock blocked for 1 week, for ] by ]. {{nac}} --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| There’s a history of socking, block evasion and, IIRC, legal threat, by ], an experienced user who previously edited disruptively, and also block-evaded, as ]. The Barnstarbob account has been blocked for sockpuppeteering since December 2011. In the last few days, using two IPs (96.56.141.236 and 12.154.143.194), he has made a prodigious number of edits at ], the locus of much of the problematic behavior that led to his block. In edit summary, posted in reply to my suggestion at one of his two IP talk pages that he get his account unblocked before he continues editing, he readily admits to being the block-evading user in question—at the same time as continuing to edit. Minutes later, instead of appealing the block of his account, he resumed editing at Chevrolet Vega and elsewhere under a freshly-minted account, ]. In other words, blatant socking and block evasion. | |||
| Creation of this latest sock simply continues the behavior for which Barnstarbob was indeffed in 2011. Is it possible to block the IPs he’s using as well as the new sock, to prevent further block evasion? | |||
| Message on one of his IP talk pages about appealing the Barnstarbob block: | |||
| ANI notification on his Chevyguy 1959 talk page: ] (]) 21:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest to open an SPI and use checkuser to see if the user and IPs are sockpuppets. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| How do remove the block. It's long enough already....want to use the new username <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You are still under block sanction and should not be editing here. However, in the interest of a little good faith... | |||
| :You were indefinitely blocked for two separate reasons, both of which you need to fix. | |||
| :One, you made a legal threat. Per our ] policy against making on-wiki legal threats, you need to retract that threat and acknowledge that the policy prevents that type of behavior going forwards. Refusing to retract the threat or making additional legal threats will result in reblocks of the current IPs and accounts. | |||
| :Two, you sockpuppeted and created a number of accounts. You need to promise to stick to one account going forwards, not editing as an IP or creating other accounts to edit from. Creating more accounts or editing as an IP will violate this. | |||
| :Also, you had been relatively confrontational with editors when this all started and for some time after, and that behavior needs to end going forwards as well for us to seriously consider an official unblock. | |||
| :] (]) 00:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Reblocked account and IP.—](]) 00:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Copypastas by ] == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=closed|result=all but one revdel'd as substantial copyrighted additions. Notice placed on IP talk page outlining copyright policy under assumptionthat user was unaware of policy. ] (]) 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| The user has made 7 edits, 5 of which appear to be lifted directly from .--] (]) 11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Dealt with. ] (]) 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == Request block review == | |||
| I jsut extended the bloock of ]. I did so primarily becauase of this edit, which includes an unsupported accusation of socking. As that is what the current block is for, this seemed worth noting. Moreover, the edit includes a particualrly gross personal attack ("kapo" with a link to make the attack crystal clear to anyone who might miss it). In response to notification that this edit was improper , and some further back-and-forth, ] made what seems to have been a final response . As the previous blocking admin, I felt this was far out of line. I notifed the user of the block at and in the subsequent edit. As this has considerable drama potential, I ask for one or more uninvolved admins, or the community at large, to review my block. ] ] 12:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The anti-semitic remark alone has earned him an indef block, I think. It's fairly clear that J0eg0d is ]. He's simply going to escalate his behavior until he gets inevitably banned anyway, then go play martyr to his cheering fans on various Reddit forums dedicated to gaming Misplaced Pages articles. ] <small>(])</small> 12:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi. This is an admin board, so I'm not sure whether or not I should respond, I come here to read the different disputes as a way to learn how (and how not to) behave/respond to certain circumstances. Again, not sure that I have a voice here, but DES did request the community's response, so I took a look. And having taken that look, I think it's clear that this individual has deep-rooted issues in dealing with the constraints that are put on editors in an effort to make this project more legitimate. We are similar in that we joined Misplaced Pages years ago (him in 2005, me in 2009), but did not become active until relatively recently (him this year, me at the end of 2013). However, his recent activity looks to be growing more antagonistic in a geometric fashion. I'm actually surprised at the restraint of only extending the block a single week. But hopefully when he comes back he'll have calmed down. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi ]. Just posting to clarify that although this is an admin board, all users are welcome to post relevant comments. -- ] (]) 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :J0eg0d isn't here to build an encyclopedia and never has been. He's an antagonistic user whose actions here have been odious, all amplified by his continual off-wiki activities. I for one do not think that the project will be affected one whit - positively or negatively - by his absence.--] (]) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yes, exactly what ] said above: he's moved into the martyr phase. Any action taken here will be seen as a "victory" for him.--] (]) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Keep however many days the personal attack contributes to the block extension, but decrease it by however many days the socking accusation contributes. The accusation of socking was not made “without any evidence”: The accusation mentions that the IP address matches the area of where the Misplaced Pages user has admitted to reside. For better or worse, people have clearly been banned under ] for even less, so this shouldn't be sanctioned as a spurious accusation when it empirically exceeds evidence thresholds for taking action against socks. So dock from the ban extension however many days the accusation contributes. I hope all character attacks no matter how subtle are equally sanctioned going forward. ] (]) 18:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Start with the block DESiegal gave first. If that doesn't work, then an indef. ] (]) 22:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to take a moment here, if I may, to ponder the human cost of these episodes and to ask whether it can be reduced. On the one hand, we have the troubles inflicted on this editor's targets, of whom I am not the least, and I can't say I've enjoyed the vituperation, the mud-slinging, the creepy stuff on-Wiki about my company’s offices, the IP-vandals travelling in the wake, the anti-Semitism. And of course there's the endless trouble it takes to construct, argue, and then to decide cases against editors of this ilk -- time that could better be spent on better things. | |||
| But I'd particularly urge reflection on the damage to the editors themselves. We’ve seen this repeatedly at Gamergate: newly-recruited editors plunge headlong into the fray and then, over a span of days or weeks, deteriorate until the decision to block or ban them is inescapable. The trajectory is familiar, but it consumes dozens, even hundreds of hours, of hard and unrewarding work and can leave scars across the encyclopedia. | |||
| It also, clearly, takes a heavy toll on the Gamergate editor. Read this editor's posts over the last week or two, looking not for violations but simply thinking about their state of mind. Wouldn’t things have been better for all -- including the editor himself -- if all this could have been stopped sooner? Could brakes have been applied to prevent or cushion the denouement? AE and AN/I are currently inclined to look for smoking guns, and so we await the ultimate explosion. I don’t know the solution, but I do wish we could both avoid the disruption and also avoid the pain and broken crockery. ] (]) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I would echo Dr. Bernstien's sentiments: once and for all we must solve this gamergate problem. They're a blight on wikipedia and a threat to our culture of collaboration. ] (]) 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that the "problem" lies entirely with a ] of ] IPs whose ] consists of breaching experiment after breaching experiment to try and whittle down any opposing ] from their ]. I would argue that their constantly crossing the ] is because they believe we would lose any war of ] with them. They fancy themselves ]. I wonder how Reddit would react when we pointed their higher-ups to the Arbitration case and every event since then? After all, they have no love lost for Reddit's master. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Systems are already in place to deal with the situation. Insisting more be done 'for the sake of the editor' sounds as disingenuous as I'm sure it was implied. ] (]) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| WP:Circlejerk ] (]) 18:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive behaviour of ] == | |||
| *User: {{user|Rolandi+}} | |||
| Continously disruptive editing. The user refuses to discuss in a civil manner or contribute to the project. | |||
| *Without discussion, editing the infobox of , changing the contemporary and historiographical view of the family (notability), that instead of Serbian, they were Albanian. There is a section regarding theories on their origin, and a discussion at the talk page. | |||
| *Without discussion, editing the introduction of , changing the contemporary and historiographical view of the tribe (notability), that instead of Greek, they were Albanian. There is a section regarding theories on their origin, and a discussion at the talk page. Rolandi+ opened , which is very confusing. | |||
| *Without discussion, removing a reference of , on the basis that "not reliable source, doesn't mention kosovo with its official name" and "" the reference uses '']''. | |||
| The user has been warned countless times. He makes inappropriate comments such as , , , , , Also, I have reasons to believe that {{user|AlbertBikaj}} and {{user|Rolandi+}} are the same person, based on scope, spellings and punctuation marks.--] 13:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I was new here (now I have 4 days here) so I didn't know that I had to use the talk pages.After I was warned , I have ALWAYS used the talk pages of the articles or user's talk pages.(you can see that).After I was informed,I haven't edit anything at "Balsic family" | |||
| "Souliotes" (I have used only the talk page after that.Actually without consensus at the talk page,Zoupan deleted from the "Souliotes" some informations +references that were on the article since a long time---I have asked for independent help at the relevant notice board. ) | |||
| Zoupan also claimed "8,000–12,000" here:https://en.wikipedia.org/Kosovo_Serbs .When I asked him to provide references ,he provided some references that didn't say the same thing he claimed (so he lied with his references). | |||
| He says that I deleted a "referenced" source.I used the talk page to explain him that the used reference was not serious (so it is not reliable).The web page referred to kosovo as "Kosovo +Metohija" which is not its official name.The most important thing that makes it clear that it is not a serious media are the comments.There are many nacionalist comments (that a serious+reliable media doesn't allow ) such as "Ramush Haradinaj+Hashim Thaci are killers etc "/ "we will never return to Kosovo dialogue" etc. | |||
| After we hadn't an agreement about "Balsic family " and "Kosovo serbs" ,he started claiming at the Souliotes' talk page that my references weren't correct.He wanted from me to answear his questions (he made these things only to "revenge" against me as I didn't have the same thoughts with him about some serbian related informations.).He also said that he had references where he based his claims.I asked him twice to provide his references at the talk page but he didn't (he lied again).Also he said to me that he would made edits at some albanian related pages (about the albanian nobility--He obviously wanted only to "revenge" ).---For all of these please see our talk pages and the mentioned articles' talk pages. | |||
| As for my "inappropriate comments" I am ready to be more carefull in the future. | |||
| He also said that he believes I am a sockpuppet.Actually ,he can investigate about that.Albert Bikaj is obviously "albanian" so it's normal for two albanians to edit albanian related pages.I am sure that Zoupan is the "same" person with other serb editors based on scope,spellings and punctuation marks.As I said :Zoupan thinks I am a sockpuppet and he can investigate about that. | |||
| ] (]) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm a liar and avenger? Okay. Please do take a look at the talk pages, because this is getting tiresome. Note that the user has made 8 edits to the above comment, with one timestamp.--] 20:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It is true that I did 8 edits to the above comment, with one timestamp.However ,this doesn't mean that my words aren't true about you.As I said the other editors can see our talk pages and the mentioned articles' talk pages.And don't continue adding "Ottoman greeks" at the souliotes' article without our consensus .] (]) 08:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] using bad words == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=closed|result=no action required <br /> — ] ] 15:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| How can Administrator say this --] (]) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering the nature of the thread ] It looks like TRM showed some restraint. ]|] 15:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you're a filthy disgusting racist IP and calling you an "arsehole" is putting it lightly. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 15:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I think that an admin can refrain from name calling regardless of the accuracy of it. I would not call it actionable, but if I saw that in the contribution history of an RfA candidate I would probably oppose. Don't take the bait please, we need to set an example. ] 15:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That is exactly the kind of liberal and biased response I would expect from the likes of you Chillum. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| ==Urgent: would somebody consider snow deleting a BLP, please?== | |||
| {{archive top|result=Deleted by Floq. ] - ] 20:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'm starting a new section for maximum attention, but this is about ], which is also discussed . In view of the e-mail sent presumably by the subject of the article, which is mentioned in both those places, would somebody please snow delete ]? The AfD has only been running for 3,5 days, half the usual minimum, but it has a pretty overwhelming consensus for delete, and the subject wants it gone. Technically, I suppose there's no guarantee the e-mail, which ] has forwarded to wmf legal, is really from the subject, but, well, why shouldn't it be, and it's not a huge deal if it isn't. He understandably wants the article gone, and we shouldn't keep him waiting for our bureaucracy. Please. ] | ] 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :I've deleted the article, but don't have time to relearn all the AFD closing formatting steps (I close an AFD approximately once a blue moon, and have to relearn them every single time). A little help at ] would be appreciated. --] (]) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}Thank you, Floquenbeam. The close looks OK to me, but what do I know. If you add this script to your monobook.js or equivalent, your life will be better: | |||
| :::''importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');'' | |||
| :: ] | ] 19:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::{{ec}}You've been helped; you could use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js in the future, a lot simpler than adding odd templates everywhere. —]''']''' 19:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} Dr. Libby's contact info is on his website linked from the article, so confirming the email should be straightforward. That said, the current revision of the article doesn't look terribly problematic. There was some excessive detail in the edit history that was cleaned up earlier but other than that, this looks like a routine AfD based on PROF notability. Personal opinion: the citation templates look bureaucratic but I don't think they look deleterious, since they don't insinuate that anything in the article is false. They just say that we haven't currently gotten the external documentation together that's needed to confirm some parts. Maybe someone could explain this to him, and maybe we could improve the wording in the templates.<p>I don't object to a snow deletion but I wouldn't have thought it was a matter of urgency, compared to some BLP situations we get sometimes. ] (]) 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == IP inserting original research beyond level 4 warnings == | |||
| IP insists upon inserting ] despite level 4 warnings and being told it is his ]. See ]. ] (]) 20:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I've protected the page for a few hours, please take it to the article's talk page. ] 20:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == KWW / The Rambling Man == | |||
| :KWW and The Rambling Man had been engaged in an edit war on the Phillip Seymour Hoffman awards page, TRM adding awards and then coming back to add references and KWW removing everything not well referenced at time of addition. Neither was following adequate policy to discuss disputed changes. It escalated on their respective talk pages and finished with KWW blocking TRM for edit warring, an obvious involved block. | |||
| :Due to a combination of the edit warring and the disruptive discussion and the involved block I have blocked KWW for 72 hrs. I would like to request other admins and editors review the situation writ large and in particular both blocks. I believe mine was a necessary stop to disruptive activity however others may not see it that way. Any admin consensus here to unblock may be acted upon with my blessings without specifically asking me first. ] (]) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{checkuser|1=The Rambling Man}} | |||
| *{{checkuser|1=Kww}} | |||
| *Adding links for convenience.<br /> — ] ] 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The only article talk page contribution by The Rambling Man is a single paragraph of ad hominem. The bigger problem is KWW blocking him, which is arguably a textbook violation of ], and precisely what the policy is there to prevent. The rationale was "''Violations of the Biographies of living persons''" which would theoretically be an exception, but I don't see how lists of awards would qualify, nor can I conceive that the majority of admin would agree, per the exceptions. TRM's actions are a different story, and the edit warring could have been handled here or by any uninvolved admin. Not sure what to do there. The block duration is fine, but the rationale is wrong, as is the blocking party. There isn't much we can do at ANI about that, and the loss of RFC/U means ARB is the only possible venue to even hear the case. That is where it needs to be. Either way, I think you did the right thing with what you had to work with, George. ] - ] 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *For ''uncontentious facts'', it's better to use {{tl|cn}}, even on a BLP. Removing very-likely-true-'''and'''-harmless-if-mistaken facts is really not protecting anyone from anything, which is the main purpose of BLP policy; BLP isn't a tool in a game of ]. There's no justification to wield the BLP Hammer here. This wholesale removal of facts, which editors were ''in the process of sourcing'', serves no purpose. Jesus, just give them a couple of days to source everything. Save the BLP card for when it's really needed, like when someone's reputation is at stake. Using it as an ace in the hole here '''devalues''' ] - makes it less likely to be respected in the future as a legitimate rationale. | |||
| :As for the blocks: Kww's was way out of order, and I was a keystroke away from undoing it when I saw Kww had been blocked too, and I (uncharacteristically) decided to not to act unilaterally once I saw it was getting more complicated. He was "involved", and (this is an aside, not my main argument) Philip Seymour Hoffman is not a BLP. His death a year and a half ago doesn't count as "recent". So if nothing else, Kww was involved in an edit war and was using BLP as a justification when it wasn't. And blocked the person he was in a non-BLP dispute with. | |||
| :I'd strongly suggest both be unblocked so they can participate in the discussion here. Both were handling this suboptimally, but if I have to choose sides, Kww's behavior here was shameful, while TRM's was just dumb. --] (]) 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Additional note'': See here: ], where GWH says he's Ok with someone unblocking both so they can participate here. I have to leave, so in case there's some kind of fallout I'm not going to do that myself, but I suggest an uninvolved admin consider it. Might help throw water on the fire. --] (]) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Certainly seems to be the textbook definition on an involved block; I don't see any way in which BLP issues are even close to excusing it. An unblock for TRM, at least, is in order; I think I'm going to go do that. Unblocking Kww to participate makes sense, I suppose. ] ]] 22:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| KWW was on the correct side of policy until the decision to use admin tools when involved in a content dispute. It would have been better to bring TRM's behaviour to public scrutiny. I think neither party comes out well in the end, I suggest we let the blocks expire(no objection to unblocking for the purposes of participating in this discussion of course). I think that George's block was reasonable given the circumstances. ] 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No he wasn't Chiillum. Another example of your piss poor understanding of content.♦ ] 07:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Unblocking both seems sensible. Neither user has covered themselves in glory here, but the big concern for me is Kww's clearly involved block. Might be the sort of thing ArbCom needs to sort out. ] (]) 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :TRM has been unblocked. I think it's only fair that Kww also be unblocked so that both can contribute here. Unblocking one and not the other isn't going to help. ] (]) 22:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per this discussion I have unblocked KWW and urged him to discuss here. ] (]) 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Kww abused his tools. He should be desysopped let alone anything else. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| As for why I blocked TRM, that wasn't until his disruption spread to ]. Take a look at the timeline: | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| #And finally, I block him. | |||
| As I've said, no different than I would have treated any other editor that insisted on edit-warring unsourced material into a BLP. TRM's experience level doesn't give him special privileges in that regard.—](]) 23:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You are still not addressing any of the criticisms; if you do not adequately do so, I will file an arbcom case promptly. ] (]) 23:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::20 minutes. I ''am'' at work, and have to do what I'm paid for.—](]) 23:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(by promptly I mean like, tomorrow IF there's no progress on meaningful discussion... I don't mean, drop everything in your life and bring me a shrubbery right now. Sorry if I left that impression...) ] (]) 23:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Using your example, you deleting sections of what he was working on just three minutes after his last edit , which was just the first of seven edits deleting wholesale the awards. He was actively working on and sourcing them when you did this. | |||
| :::I would also note that WP:BLP is meant to protect living persons from negative material about them, it isn't a catch all for any content whatsoever in an article about them. Adding an prestigious award may or may not be correct, but it isn't what BLP was designed to "protect" them from, so claiming an exception to 3RR isn't really valid here. And that makes you ], even if not intentional. ] - ] 23:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, | |||
| :#This isn't a content dispute. It began as intentional policy violations by TRM, policy violations that he has never acknowledged and shows no sign of understanding. | |||
| :#As to the contention that TRM was somehow justified: no. His "last edit" was a wholesale restoration of unsourced material. That's not in line with either the letter or spirit of either ] or ]: the citation had to be in place when he restored the material, not at some unspecified time after. At the time he began disrupting ], it's not clear that he had found a single acceptable source. | |||
| :#BLP is intended to prevent inaccurate material about living people. Both unsourced praise and unsourced criticism fall under it. The notion that the material has to be malevolent is inaccurate. From the nutshell: "''Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.''" ] clearly and unambiguously applies to the material I had removed and TRM was inserting. Winning an award is a contentious item, as miscrediting the award ''does'' do harm to the person that actually won. | |||
| :#] shouldn't apply here, because of the "''One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area''" applies. I don't have any involvement with TRM, and my involvement with the area is strictly administrative: I remove material that isn't sourced sufficiently to satisfy ] and ]. As for Hoffman being covered by ], there's legitimate dispute there: I had thought the time limit was two years, but I see that it is phrased more softly than that, with the expiration coming between 6 months and 2 years, depending on nebulous factors. However, as the timeline shows, TRM was blocked for disrupting the Hugh Jackman article: no nebulosity there at all.—](]) 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Removing unsourced material is the act of an editor, not an admin. Thus, this ''was'' a content dispute, and so you ''were'' involved. ] ]] 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Removing BLP violations isn't acting in an administrative capacity? That's an interesting assertion, but not one that I think would have wide support.—](]) 23:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*Asserting one's actions are "removing BLP violations" is not a trump card that makes your actions outside of scrutiny. The actual action should actually be "removing BLP violations". Your claim of them as such is not enough to make it so. If you want to know whether or not they ''were'' clear BLP violations, read this discussion for consensus. --]] 03:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*WK, if the BLP is invoked, the implication is that it's not a content dispute, and I believe we have to take the admin at good faith (Jayron, whether something ''is'' a BLP violation or not is frequently up for debate). Part of protecting the BLP is protecting the protectors. That's not to say that Kww's invocation of the BLP here was reasonable; I have no opinion on that right now, but AGF should extend to these cases. If an admin in all honesty makes a ''reasonable'' claim that they are protecting the BLP, we should accept that. ] (]) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Nao}} Either ArbCom both, or ArbCom neither, here. I lean in the direction of "ArbCom" neither, as this is mostly silliness, not malevolence... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **No, ArbCom is invoked here for alleged abuse of tools, which, if I understand it correctly, applies only to one of the two. ] (]) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Déjà vu. An editor was AE-blocked for a week earlier this year for re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced (IMDB) awards section. ] --] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Certainly was. I had forgotten that case: Cwobeel was AE-blocked for behaving precisely and exactly as TRM was doing.—](]) 23:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *That entire thread at AE is about how it is no big deal, followed by a week long block. Have we long our collective minds? Utterly overkill, and if actually enforced evenly, we would be blocking hundreds of people per day, none with any intent of malice. ] - ] 23:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Actually, most of this is prevented by filter 661, which prevents a very large subset of these edits from occurring in the first place. There are leaks, but generally the only time it becomes a problem is when someone edit-wars to preserve the BLP violations that have accumulated in an existing awards article. The filter was the only solution I could come up with that corrected the problem without creating these tempests.—](]) 23:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *As quoted above from BLP "{{xt|'''Contentious material''' about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately}}" (emphasis added.) Enlighten me, just how was this content "Contentious"? I understand that not all contentious content is negative (although BLP is most often cited in connection with negative content), but it can't reasonably mean "all content". What is being defined as "Contentious" here? ] ] 23:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Miscredited material damages the person that legitimately won the award. How do we ensure that material isn't miscredited? Citations to reliable sources.—](]) 23:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I don't agree. By that standard, pretty much all content in a BLP is "contentious" as it could always indirectly affect someone if it is inaccurate. I think there needs to be a good faith belief that it is actually incorrect or likely to be incorrect, or else a request for sources that has not been responded to for a significant length of time, before this sort of BLP removal applies to not obviously contentious content. ] ] 00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Obvious involved block by KWW, but the worst part is the wikilawyering above about how ] should not apply here... which sounds like "I'm ready to do it again". Right or wrong he was about the contents of the edit warring(s), his interpretation of ] boundaries is clearly silly nonsense. Kww should drop the stick and recognize he was patently wrong, otherwise that's probably stuff for Arbcom. ] 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Regardless of BLP our verifiability policy is clear about burden, but that is hardly the point. You were involved in a dispute over content, it was your edits that were being reverted. Another admin should have made the call. ] 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Textbook involved block. Unforgivable. I'm looking for serious sanctions here against KWW. --] (]) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* Instead of a pound of flesh would you be happy with a recognition of error and a promise to not repeat it? I would. ] 00:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Between the bizarre interpretation of BLP ("it's contentious because I say it's contentious", seems to be the flavour) blocking another admin in breach of involved and the self-righteous issue-avoiding responses on the topic, I've lost a fair whack of faith in KWW and I'm not entirely sure that recognition of error and promises not to repeat (even if forthcoming, never mind the grovelling apology that's due) will restore it. --] (]) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Are we really prepared to state that removing BLP violations creates involvement? Given the AE decision, the notion that the edits weren't BLP violations don't hold water. We certainly don't believe that admins that revert and remove vandalism become involved as a result, so I do not see why BLP violation would be treated differently.—](]) 00:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It seems that collectively, we are resorting to blocks way to quick to start with (and with much too cavalier an attitude about it), plus the involvement, plus the lack of acknowledgement. You can't promise to not repeat what you don't claim to understand or be guilty of. At least not sincerely. Maybe we need to sleep on it, but this isn't a singular or trivial issue in my eyes. At the very least, I want more clarity than an apology can offer. I'm I really expected to block someone for adding back an award on a BLP? If not, where is the consistency? ] - ] 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Why yes, ], if you notice people inserting unsourced material into BLPs, I expect you to remove it. If editors persist in inserting the material without providing citations, I expect you to block them for doing so.—](]) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding the comparison with the earlier AE - I think it's clear that Cwobeel was not making an effort to put in generally reliable sources on articles and did this repeatedly over months without fixing things. TRM did by the time he was done with (at least the Hoffman one) put in a long list including The Guardian, Bafta, the Golden Globes, NY Times, film critics groups who issue awards, etc. That result appears to me to match our community expectations and policies on source reliability and coverage. Even if we grant you the "contentious material" point, which I do not, refusing to allow sufficient time to put in reliable sources which one is in fact doing is the problem. The "immediately" does not reasonably mean "without exception and without allowing someone any time whatsoever to source something". | |||
| :::You appear to be asserting that it does, and if that's really going to be your final position, then this will end up at Arbcom. Much less the speed of escalation or the block involvement. ] (]) 00:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''<small>(uninvolved non admin)</small> Its a shame, and the actions here, edit warring by both, and and an involved block and then twisting policy to try and sweep it under a rug are far from what should be expected from admins. They should be examples of good behaviour not bad. Definitely an ARBCOM case in the making. Actions like this are why some question admin actions and put a mark on all admins. ] 00:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just to make absolutely clear, I AM asserting that the edits were not a violation of BLP per the prior AE finding, prior WP history and community expectations. The prior AE was regarding ongoing patterns of edits that were never adequately sourced, not edits which were in the process of being adequately sourced in a prompt and ongoing manner. Cwobeel never fixed the problem. TRM was fixing the problem with what clearly appears to be a correct result (to me), and you allowed him no room to do so. Your rules and prior case interpretation are evidently so literal that your judgement is suspect. ] (]) 00:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we're in the practice of making things absolutely clear, I'm asserting that the sourcing needs to be provided ''prior'' to the restoration. None of this storm would have occurred if TRM had followed the basics of ], much less ], by restoring the material ''after'' he had found sources to substantiate it. His repeated insertions of IMDB, his edit warring over individual items that were not covered by his new sources while not providing citations, his repeated insults and attacks, all made it clear that he had no intention of abiding by our fundamental sourcing policies. If you can excuse this misbehaviour, I will point at your judgement as being suspect. This was, and remains, a case of an editor intentionally violating ] and ].—](]) 00:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Go back to the Hoffman article. As it stands, when he was done, please tell me if you believe that the end result of his editing work was a standards compliant sourced article or not. ] (]) 00:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, let's see: he and , he has never introduced a source that substantiates that material, so no. There are numerous other awards in the "Film Critics Award" and "Miscellaneous Awards" sections that have no sources, such as the IGN awards, Gransito awards, Gold Derby awards, the International Online Film Critic award, the Venice Volpi cup, the Utah Film Critics awards, and more. Have you been defending his edits without checking to make certain that the sources he supplied actually substantiated his edits? That's the point: he restored challenged material without providing any substantiating sources, in violation of ], much less ]. He provided sources that substantiated about half the article, and then .—](]) 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The specifics of what's still not sourced adequately to your or policy satisfaction makes for a perfectly good article or user talk page discussion. | |||
| ::::::::The question of whether his "done" point is good enough makes for another one. | |||
| ::::::::The point is, you have now acknowledged that at least half of what he restored now *is* adequately sourced. You repeatedly acted in ways which attempted to frustrate giving him enough space and time to do at least that much sourcing and improvement work. | |||
| ::::::::The point also is, whether the material is justifiably describable as controversial or as normal content (which, though needing correct sourcing, would not require immediate draconian action, much less edit warring). | |||
| ::::::::The point also is, whether it is reasonable to read the policy or prior precedent in such a manner that prior fixes of the sourcing problems are required before re-adding material in general. | |||
| ::::::::The point nearly finally is, whether any of this was suitably serious of a violation to edit war over, act in an escalating confrontational manner in general, issue warnings and finally a block over, versus being something which should have been fixed in the normal way of things with discussion. In other words, was it abusive behavior or merely imperfect editing. | |||
| ::::::::And lastly, whether the block was involved or not. | |||
| ::::::::As I said elsewhere, TRM could have fixed this by acting differently. That's not the question. The questions are whether he actually edit warred (probably), introduced false or bad or controversial material by normal standards of controversy (probably not), introduced not yet sourced material (true), eventually corrected much of the lack of sourcing (you have yourself admitted, at least half of it he did). This picture, from a normal non-involved viewpoint, does not argue that edit warring to stop him, warning him, or blocking him were good choices, much less policy supported. ] (]) 01:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Actually, since his material about Vancouver contradicts the only source that he provided about Vancouver, I would say that he ''did'' probably introduce false material. I reverted obvious and intentional violations of our sourcing policies that were being accompanied by abusive edit summaries and talk page comments that made it clear that he had no intention of complying with them. As for whether his "done" point is "good enough", no, that is not a point of discussion. The material had been challenged. He had restored it against ], and has not found references that support it. There is ''no'' policy-based argument for keeping such material. Sourcing about "half" of one's edits while reverting against both ] and ] is not some kind of success marker: it's a sign of absolute and abject failure to comply with ], especially given that the article he was eventually blocked for was unequivocally a BLP.—](]) 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Sadly, this is not surprising in the least. Recently, an ArbCom case was filed against Kww and He seems to assume his biases are neutral POV, and therefore, everyone who disagrees with him is breaking policy. So edit warring is restoring an encyclopedia against disruptive editors, and it doesn't matter to be civil towards them because they're second class Wikipedians. Edit warring, disruption, incivility, all in the name of preserving the encyclopedia, of course. So it comes as no surprise to me that he edit warred here and abused his tools, it wasn't hard to see this coming. ] (]) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Really? So we're just going to ignore the elephant in the room? It takes ''two'' to tango, and this wasn't the isolated actions of a single Admin. Was Kww blameless or "innocent" here? Heck no! But I've seen enough from The Rambling Man to have concerns on that end as well. Again, if this goes to ArbCom, the actions of both Admins should be examined here. If this turns into a "let's lynch Kww" (who, in my experience, I've found to be one of the better Admins at smoking out socks and vandals), I'll swiftly be joining the camp whove lost confidence in the Admin corps in general. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Rambling Man could have de-escalated or proposed sources on talk or could have edited sources into a sandbox version or several other approaches. I think that those are obvious and givens. That said; "it takes two to tango" does not mean that both parties actually did something worthy of an arbcom case. I think looking at both in the incident would be unavoidable, but the amount of button pushing seemed asymmetrical. ] (]) 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::All he had to do was not violate ] by restoring challenged material without providing an inline citation that supported the material he had provided, and ''especially'' not do it with respect to BLPs. That's not some major expectation that is beyond his capacity. As it stands, many of the claims in the article still aren't supported by citations.—](]) 00:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sure, if you view it in isolation, and ignore the pattern of behavior... Anyway, I can already tell this isn't going to end well. For the project. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the Watch. ] (]) 01:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' (Edit conflict with several) (Following up Dennis's post of 23:08). I agree with Dennis that this looks like ] rather than a valid BLP issue. Kww also described the reversions on the PSH list as challenging the list's veracity which is obviously an editorial choice (thus, involvement), though he also considered the PSH award list edits to also be under BLP. A few seconds with a search engine was enough to verify several of the awards, so this all comes across to me as Kww trying to make a POINT (one that in my opinion didn't need to be made). PSH's more important awards are also already listed and cited in the main PSH biography article, which as an FA has presumably been carefully vetted, also deflating the BLP argument if the disputed awards were the relatively minor ones. Anyway, wiping out the whole list was excessive. I'll leave aside the block issue for now, but at minimum I see battleground conduct backed by bureaucratic overzealousness and/or seriously lousy editing judgment here. ] (]) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kww have you lost your mind?? These are famous actors who win oodles of awards, much of which can be verified with some digging. Saying this is contentious is really pushing it to justify edit-warring while involved. This behaviour is extremely punitive to all content-editors and undermines what's left of the egalitarian nature of this place. You could have looked and found sources but your nose was out of joint so you turned it into a battleground. If we apply this behaviour across the 'pedia, we'd have no editors. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::NB: As Kww has no insight into the problem, I suggest a case be filed at arbitration for misuse of tools. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I belive it's true that an arbitratable issue is involved, but I don't believe it's hopeless than KWW can be shown the error of his ways through discussion. We should only file cases we can't deal with otherwise. We're not there yet. ] (]) 01:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think it was normal edit warring in the sense of trying to push an opinion about the events described in the article. It seems to have been more about imposing an absolutist approach to Misplaced Pages policy enforcement (WP:BURO) for its own sake, in a situation where it wasn't helpful in the slightest. It would be great if Kww could lighten up about this, and realize that Misplaced Pages policies are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. ] (]) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I echo the multiple people who note the ] nature of this. Whether or not TRM needed to be blocked for edit warring or not is now irrelevant. If he did, KWW needed only reporting him at ]. There's hundreds of active admins, someone would have taken care of it. Admins should not use their tools when interacting with people whom they are in an active dispute. This is a textbook case of an involved block. It may or may not have even been a ''bad'' block, but that's now irrelevant. I'm not sure any firm action needs to be taken against KWW, except ] and to log this in our collective personal memories incase this becomes a pattern, though. It was a bad action, but I don't see evidence that it was more than a singular, isolated bad action, and I don't believe we need to arbitrate or demand resignation or anything else like that. We don't even need an apology, an allocution, an admission or anything like that. It'd be nice, but really what we need is just to all know that KWW has done this once, and if it becomes a pattern, act later. It's documented, it's almost universally agreed to be a bad thing, and we should move on and just keep an eye open for further problems. --]] 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*If an admin is unable to understand when a block is legitimate or not, when WP:INVOLVED applies and how to proceed in case of content disputes and edit warring, he is unfit to use the block buttons. Competence is required, let alone measure and common sense. And the major issue is not the block, but the persistence by KWW to justify it through a biased interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. So far, his responses read like "I'm ready to do everything I did again", which is unacceptable. ] 01:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Meh. People say stupid shit in the middle of an argument all the time. Have they ''actually'' used their tools inappropriately after everyone has told them it was inappropriate? If they haven't, we can chalk it all up to "people saying stupid shit when they are angry". If they DO use their tools inappropriately again, then we have something to work on. But I generally tend to ignore the bullshit people yell when they are pissed, because it is meaningless. --]] 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The protection war with Philippe a while back didn't involve blocking anyone but it did involve tools, and resulted in an arbcom admonition. The tool use seems like a technicality in both cases though. The issue as I see it is poor judgement combined with an overbearing attitude. I wish he would use a much different approach. ] (]) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Actually, Jayron, if you believe I am writing this way because I am angry, you are only partially right. I am a little torqued, but it is primarily because people seem to be treating this as a content dispute, and that's primarily because of TRM's involvement. ] and ], combined with a supporting AE decision, make this pretty much black-letter law. I remove unsourced material from award articles all the time: it's one of our chronic forms of BLP violation. I warn editors that restore that unsourced material all the time. If someone insists on restoring unsourced material to a BLP, I routinely block them. It's not some case of me getting a hair up my ass about article content in any way that's different from reverting vandalism or other, more egregious BLP violations. What happened today was that the editor that chose to violate policy has a support base and people are more inclined to look upon it as a content dispute for that reason. If this had been an IP editor inserting unsourced claims about K-Pop bands, no one would have batted an eye.—](]) 02:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*There's hundreds of active admins. You didn't have to be the one to do it. You're right, if this had been someone you'd not recently interacted with, no one would bat an eye. If it is a person you have a recent history with, ask for outside help. That's the proper way to do it. --]] 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I cannot remember any time in history that I have had a content dispute with The Rambling Man. Today was strictly about behaviour from the start.—](]) 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*You were in one with him. On multiple articles. Immediately before you blocked him. As others have pointed out, ] is not a license to edit war indiscriminately on BLP articles, nor does it mean you can just block someone because you don't like what they are doing on a BLP. Even if what they are doing is unreferenced for a few minutes. If you are unsure as to whether or not others would have blocked TRM in this case, look around at this discussion. Almost unilaterally, no one else would have. Your argument is invalid. If you had asked here or at ] before blocking them, consensus would have been to not block them. Ergo, you're wrong. Any other ex-post-facto justification of your block is invalid. If you are going back and forth with an editor on any issue except eggregious vandalism or '''''negative''''' unsourced information about a BLP, it is your responsibility to ask another admin to do the review the situation. And again, if you're belief is "maybe it was negative". Read this discussion. No it wasn't. So just stop. --]] 02:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Let me clear up any confusion: I'm not TRM's fan. The dismissive and ease of which you are saying you block someone over them adding an award bothers me, particularly since it isn't exactly a great way to keep new editors and smacks of the love of rules over the end product (an encyclopedia), but the involved issue is the biggest concern. But again, my comments are not due to any love for TRM. Assigning the concern to a fan base would be a big mistake here. ] - ] 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Kww: Alternately; you're overreacting to editors generally known to do good editing, and rather than AGF with them you treated them like IP editors inserting random garbage, which is all sorts of wrong. | |||
| :::::It's not "just" a content dispute (on Hugh Jackman, that's a BLP) but you cried BLP on the Hoffman Awards list article and picked a fight with TRM, when everyone else above seems to agree that was the wrong thing for you to have done, and there seems consensus your application of BLP there was defective. That seems to have set the stage for whatever came next. Which took a grand total of 16 minutes and 11 of your reverts there, two warnings on TRM's talk page neither of which specified which article and which edits you meant. | |||
| :::::And you did not evidently give him sufficient time to make similar cleanups there as he'd done with the other one. | |||
| :::::Dude, sixteen minutes. You reverted 11 times, in sixteen minutes, without talking to him about the specifics or letting him fix things he was clearly in process of at least partly fixing. | |||
| :::::If your trigger is set that sensitively, it's off. You need to stop that. ] (]) 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(clarification) that's 11 times in 16 minutes on the Hugh Jackman article, which is the now-specified reason for the block (not clear at the time). ] (]) 02:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Are you seriously claiming that TRM needs to be given specific instructions about what it means for a citation to support the material he is adding? That TRM did not ''know'' that the material he was restoring wasn't supported by inline citations at the time he made the restoration? And as for the eleven reverts, please: sequential reverts count as one revert. You would rather that I hadn't taken the time to look at the material he was adding and only removed the violating sections? I picked through his wholesale reversion and only removed the points that still violated policy after he had added an incomplete source.—](]) 02:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* (ec) I don't think I'm part of TRM's support base, and I do think (as others have said here) that reverting uncontentious and undisputed material is much different from reverting vandalism or egregious BLP vios. Treating stuff like that as a binary rather than a matter of good judgment is what I mean by absolutism and bureaucracy. And a good faith challenge over sourcing requires (IMHO) a material concern that the stuff being challenged is actually erroneous. While it's true that the BURDEN is on the one who put it there, challenging verifiable material (especially uncontentious material) too many times is either a battleground problem or a competence problem, take your pick. Per WP:AGF we are not supposed to treat people's edits as vandalism unless there's actual evidence of a problem. ] (]) 02:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * (ec) I'm torn. (Not about wanting to hit KWW with the fish, 'cause I'm completely on board with that.) Part of me agrees with Jayron32 that we should stick this in our brains in case a pattern emerges, and if that's what everybody wants to do, I'm okay with that. OTOH, I have two worries. The first has to do with something KWW said to Jayron32 above, about an IP editor inserting unsourced claims, and it is that we wouldn't be here munching popcorn and watching the show if TRM weren't an admin. This would have been a regular old unblock request, through a regular old procedure, and we might maybe possibly could have a thread about it here hours or even days later. The lack of scrutiny prior to today's events could be enough to have Arbcom examine KWW's past admin behavior. My second concern is that it appears that if KWW himself has any argument with any phrase in any article/list about a BLP, he believes it to be "contentious," and that's not what I take the BLP policy to mean. It does not require or encourage the removal of all unsourced statements. If KWW really thinks it does, that's a problem, and it certainly appears that is indeed the case. ]] 02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*"Contentious" simply means that any reasonable person might believe the claim to be untrue. That does apply to most facts, yes, and ] doesn't apply to winning regional film awards. I think ] makes it pretty clear that these kind of additions do fail ]. I may not have remembered this exact case earlier, but I was a participant in the discussion and have taken numerous actions based on its conclusions. I do so habitually and without relying on some list of links to previous discussions.—](]) 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cwobeel was a problem in that he repeatedly failed to properly reliably source, over months, despite many warnings and much chance to do the right thing. You've already admitted that even by your standards TRM at least half-correctly sourced the changes on the Hoffman article, and you aren't disputing the timeline that shows that you didn't give him a fair chance to try to do so on the Jackman article. | |||
| :::Even if you dispute eventualism, failing to give TRM 16 revert-free minutes to make fixes is nowhere near the same as months. | |||
| :::The situations are not comparable. That you keep coming back to Cwobeel is part of the indication of a problem. ] (]) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"Contentious" simply means that any reasonable person might believe the claim to be untrue.'' Kww, that is a drastic stretch or attempt to redefine the English language, to the point where the word means nothing and there was no reason to include it in the policy page. I'll go with ]: "1. Marked by heated arguments or controversy. 2. Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord." I can't imagine a sane BLPN discussion that would find those award mentions to be contentious, unless there was an ongoing dispute or issue with someone with a history of making bad edits. ] (]) 03:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your right that Kww's reading would make our use of the word contentious superfluous. But I would adopt a much more expansive interpretation: first, if someone is making a good faith claim that something in a BLP is not just uncited, but is factually wrong, its contentious under BLP policy. And second, all negative assertions about a living person should be considered automatically contentious. BLP has never required a citation for every single positive factual claim about a living person, and it shouldn't be read to do so. ]] 04:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd say if you think something uncited might be factually wrong, you can revert it under ] without regard to whether it's a BLP article or not, as a content decision. While if it's a contentious claim in a BLP (and if it's negative, it's presumptively controversial and therefore contentious) you ''must'' revert it as a policy matter. The difference is if you make content decisions about an article, you are editorially involved in it and should stay away from it administratively.<p>I'll also add that the practice of flat-out removing stuff on suspicion of problems or DONTLIKE is obnoxious even if the stuff really isn't in good enough shape for the article (plausible uncited claim that you have good faith doubts about). The right thing to do is transfer it to the talk page and say what the problem is, per ] which is a part of ] that nobody seems to remember. The talk post then alerts other editors of the issue, and maybe someone can find a good citation or figure out that it's actually a misstatement of something verifiable, etc. (Obviously there are exceptions like bad BLP vios). What happens now is the stuff just disappears and the only way to find it is by grovelling through the article's revision history, looking at piles of edits that turn out to be contentless, and often made by de facto unflagged and unapproved bots. Hope that's not too tangential. ] (]) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I was catching up on this thread and almost commented earlier, at which time I would have said "per Jayron32". But I got pulled away, and now that I've come back, and seen the adamant "I'm right you're all wrong" position... I'm starting to think there's a more serious problem, if Kww is unwilling to accept a fairly clear consensus about interpreting BLP ('''not''', as he seems to think, about whether BLP is important or not, or needs to be "enforced" or not, but on interpreting what it means). He doens't need to agree, but he needs to accept consensus is against him - this was '''not''' "BLP enforcement" in any meaningful interpretation of the term. I remember that stupid ArbCom case someone above refered to (I was one of the Arbs, though in the minority): I opposed any sanction on Kww because the rules were being interpreted in a strict, sanctimonious, irrational way, to browbeat someone who was doing something that was actually fairly reasonable. But now it's Kww interpreting rules in a strict, sanctimonious, irrational way, to browbeat someone who was actively trying to do something about the problem (albeit in typical über-grump unproductive fashion). ArbCom was wrong to sanction Kww then, but Kww was wrong to block TRM now. If he doesn't see that, if he's going to stay in IDHT mode, then I'm not sure leaving this until it happens again is the best approach. Probably best to let him sleep on it. --] (]) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*I've certainly gotten the drift that many people don't think unsourced awards violate ] (although their reasoning eludes me). What seems to be happening here, however, is that people don't even wish to view TRM's edits through the lens of ]. There was nothing so urgent about having a list of awards for ''anybody'' that justified restoring the material prior to providing a source. Even if you all line up and say that everything I believe ] means is wrong and I just have to accept it, when did ] lose all of its teeth? Why is everyone so sympathetic to the restoration of unsourced material? ] keeps hammering at me for the "speed" with which I undid TRM's edits without noting that it was a sequence problem: if TRM had found sources for his material, added them, and then hit the "save" button, there wouldn't have been any reverts at all. I gave him his fair chance: I looked over his edits, removed ''only'' the material that remained unsourced while preserving every part of his additions that met policy. He responded by restoring them all ''en masse'' without providing a single source to back them up.—](]) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet you've admitted he fixed at least half of it on the Hoffman article, given time (despite the edit warring). That demonstrates that he was making progress towards an article adequately sourced by community standards. | |||
| :::Getting into the edit war was not the right response, you were assuming bad faith and not allowing reasonable time for him to work on fixes to the article. The faster you go on these things the more it blows up in your face. You should have been able to tell from the first valid reliable sources on the first article that he was working in the right direction. Failure to AGF on that point and let him work on it some is the problem. You responded like they were outright vandalism, not works-in-progress. You can't treat known-good editor making in-progress-eventually-good-edits like a vandal. If you disagree with the incremental manner you ask them to sandbox or talk page, not edit war over it. ] (]) 03:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I , which he proceeded to ignore. Somehow, his constant use of the words "pathetic", "vindictive", and "ongoing destruction" didn't reassure me much.—](]) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Starting that (linked) discussion with "Do not..." kind of makes my point, not yours. ] (]) 03:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will ask you to bear context in mind: even if we 100% accept your perspective that I was dead wrong about it being a BLP problem, at the time I was interacting, I sincerely believed that I was dealing with an editor that was intentionally inserting BLP violations. That tends to influence my tone and demeanour.—](]) 06:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::TRM's response wasn't ideal, but I somewhat understand the dynamic. Sitush said something recently that stuck with me: "Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand... In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button" (referencing a dispute unrelated to this one and whose details aren't relevant here). There's an understandable impatience that content editors have when they're told how to edit by people who don't write content themselves. Best thing to do is lead by example instead of acting like a supervisor and expecting people to respond like underlings. ] (]) 06:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::KWW, regardless, the appropriate response to someone ''actively working on an article, and slowly adding refs'' is not "edit war, edit war, edit war, scream ], then block". The appropriate response is slow down, let them finish their work, and ask for outside input. ''If'' TRM had no intention of providing refs, ''then'' such lack of intention would have become evident ''if'' you had allowed them time to do it the wrong way. Instead, you edit warred repeatedly, played the BLP trump card, and blocked them. Now we're here discussing your behavior, and more than one person above have called for your tools because of it. If you'd done nothing for 24 hours, and TRM had actually done the wrong thing you're claiming you think they were going to do before you stopped them, we'd not be having this discussion at all. There's no loss to the encyclopedia if you actually let someone break the rules a bit before blocking them, rather than stopping them before they have a chance to break a rule you think they might be on the path to breaking. --]] 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)t | |||
| ::::Actually, TRM wasn't '''adding''' any material to any article; he was '''replacing''' the mass deletions or blankings that Kww had made without any warning, discussion, consensus, attempt at finding/providing references, or even tagging. Kww seems to have conflated part of the Cwobeel AE discussion into blanket permission for him to mass delete from any and all awards articles or lists as he pleases, and either block or edit war if his mass deletions are attempted to be reverted. It is a longstanding principle and guideline that the correct way to remedy a list or list article that may need, or would benefit from, additional citations is to either (1) discuss the issue on Talk regarding the most pressing of the concerns and enlist help or input, (2) place "citation needed" tag(s) on the item(s) that seem problematic, (3) place a refimprove tag at the top, and/or (4) better yet, provide the needed citations oneself. ] (]) 06:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Background info=== | |||
| Kww has been on a deletion spree, devoid of prior discussion or notice or consensus, on '''Lists of awards and nominations''' articles, and '''has created his own special edit-blocking filter which prevents anyone from restoring the awards'''. I bumped into this on ]. When I tried to restore the 60 awards and noms (out of 62) that Kww had deleted, I was unable to, even after several tries -- instead a big red warning message with the STOP sign and the following text appeared: | |||
| <big><big>Awards and nominations must have citations to reliable sources validating each and every award received. If this edit is not an attempt to add unsourced material related to awards and nominations, please report this error.</big></big> | |||
| I reported the issue on ], and with some repeated questioning Kww revealed that this was an invisible tool he created and was deploying himself, after gutting awards articles, so that no one could add the awards and noms back to the articles unless each one had a citation. '''Please read the entire discussion in that thread'''. He stated that "Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning." ] (]) 04:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Edit filter 661 has been in place since the Cwobeel arbitration decision. It does, indeed, prevent people from making most additions of unsourced awards to awards lists. I've referenced it in the discussion above. It does tend to keep this problem from growing without provoking edit wars, simply by getting the editor to include the source when the material is originally introduced rather than letting it linger unsourced in articles.—](]) 04:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I asked you twice about the genesis/aegis/origin/discussion of this edit-block filter, and your entire response was: {{xt|It's intentionally invisible, and I am the author of the filter. It simply enforces a fairly obvious consequence of WP:BLP, and, if you wish to discuss it, I would suggest that WT:BLP is the appropriate location. Be certain to mention that the reason you discovered it was because you attempted to add a massive amount of material about a living person without taking the time to verify that it was true, in violation of WP:BLP, restoring it after its veracity had been challenged, in violation of WP:BURDEN. Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning.}} That's not what you are saying now. Again, please direct me with a link to the precise discussion/origin/aegis of this edit filter, if indeed it is the same one you posted on ]. Whatever its origin/aegis, I can guarantee it is being used against Misplaced Pages policy when, after gutting an article of 60+ public-record awards and nominations without warning, cause, discussion, or even tagging, it is placed on the article while ], again without discussion, consensus, or permission. ] (]) 04:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't understand where you see that I am contradicting myself. Yes, I wrote that filter. I wrote it and installed it shortly after the Cwobeel arbitration enforcement. Yes, it is invisible to anyone without edit filter privileges, and it is invisible on purpose. It enforces what I believe to be an obvious consequence of BLP (a belief supported at the time I wrote it by that Cwobeel arbitration enforcement, although this discussion makes that less clear). Even if you reject my stance on BLP, it certainly prevents a widespread problem of editors violating ]. Any filter editor that reviews its history and content will see that it has been reasonably effective at blocking unsourced award additions, and is in no way specific to any particular awards article.—](]) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Under the circumstances could you make it public, so there's no question what it's doing? (I can see, but others in the discn can't). Thank you. ] (]) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That would make it fairly useless, and I don't know how I could make it useful again after exposure. I assume that no one would believe that you are going to make false statements on my behalf at this stage of the discussion, so you should be able to reassure people that the filter was put in place roughly one week after the Cwobeel discussion, that I haven't edited it in months, and that it has no logic to look for any specific award article (although it does have logic to determine that the article it is dealing with is an awards article).—](]) 05:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For the record, created 31 Jan 2015, last edited by KWW on 10 Feb 2015, on 4 June 2015 ] changed it to limit it to mainspace (previously had no namespace restriction so it would affect userspace). The targeting logic applies to the class of awards articles, not specific ones. I still feel that it should be made public but, yes, you have characterized it accurately there. ] (]) 05:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) ''Without bothering to verify it was true'' is ABF on your part, and the filter is massive overreach. If you watch the Oscar ceremony on live TV and see your favorite actress Jane Schmoe receive an Oscar and give a memorable speech, the need or lack of it for durable sourcing when you add it to an article is one thing, but it's bizarre to say you haven't verified that Jane really received the award. Stuff like that happens all the time whenever there's a live TV event like an important football game and someone updates an article with the score. And in general, people have knowledge that generally derives from RS even if they don't have the citations at hand, which they use when editing. Do I know that Austin is the capital of Texas? Yes. Do I remember where I learned that fact? No. Can you say I haven't verified it? That's silly, maybe I used to live there. You're using admin tools to impose an extremist vision on Misplaced Pages content editing. Please stop that. I'd go as far as to say are editorially involved in this whole awards thing by now, so you shouldn't be doing anything administratively in it. ] (]) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Kww, Please link the discussion(s) regarding the (1) request for creation of, (2) the guidelines for deployment of, and (3) the permissions required to use, that filter. There is no directive or request for such a thing on the Cwobeel AE; the decision was simply that Cwobeel was "Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists." . ] (]) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have never claimed that any of those three things exist. I created the filter on my own accord, based on my understanding of ], ], and ], and did so after the Cwobeel decision reinforced my understanding of the BLP consequences of unsourced awards. I have had the authority to do so since the edit filter was first deployed. Edit filters are generally pretty cautious (this one is, actually, because its logic weights it towards large additions), but they are not generally publicly discussed because it makes them too easy to bypass. Review of its history shows an extremely low false positive rate: only a handful of edits that it has blocked weren't additions of unsourced awards.—](]) 05:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I find it shocking that you are so,dismissive of this, and the fact that genuine GF edits have been blocked by your filter, with the associated loss of goodwill involved from thos (and other) editors. Can I strongly suggest you get rid of this filter pronto. – ] (]) 05:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm very concerned by such auto-restrictive blocks, especially when it's the whim of one person who has put it there. Are there other examples of these active that I've never come across? Are these common? "Misplaced Pages- the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit unless they run into Kww's filters"! This really does seem to be over-stepping the mark as much as trying to claim Philip Seymour Hoffman is a BLP. - ] (]) 05:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are currently 54 invisible filters active on Misplaced Pages. Some are monitor only, but most prevent edits. Many are targeted against individual editors, some prevent certain classes of edits. I'm responsible for three of them that prevent edits and one that simply lets me know that I need to examine some edits to see if it's a repeat block evader.—](]) 05:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are deep into sledgehammer and nut territory. An ArbCom decision to take action against someone whose behavioural patterns in this sphere necessitated action does ''not'' give anyone carte blanche to stick in such a disruptive filter '''without specific consensus to do so'''. IF this flagged up an issue to you directly so you could make a subsequent jugement call, I would have no issue with that, but it's just awful and obstructive as it stands. I strongly advise this is removed immediately. - ] (]) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Added: making the filter invisible is more ABF. Saying it becomes useless if visible shows a presumption that everyone who encounters it is going to analyze it and try to work around it and is basically a vandal. It goes against our principles of openness. The filter should be turned off, but it should also not have been invisible. Even actual anti-vandal scripts protecting the project from real vandals are visible and their effectiveness doesn't seem impaired, so hiding the edit filter is just secretive and obnoxious. ] (]) 05:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :] KWW's edits were brought into question for the exact same thing. But hey, he's an admin, so that's fine. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : A number of anti-disruption filters are hidden. With some there's no point because it's obvious what they're filtering and therefore obvious how to avoid them, but with more complex ones, and ones used against persistent and determined vandals, it's often better to hide the actual regex that it's using. ] 09:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal: Take this to ArbCom and examine both administrators' actions and history=== | |||
| This current dispute is between two very hard-nosed admins. As it happens, due to temperment concerns. Note the many opposes. There were a lot of reasons not to give this editor extra buttons. He prevailed in his fourth Rfa. A major violation of ]? No doubt in my book. As for TRM, he's been here forever. Pretty comfortable throwing his weight around at ], where I have been watching him for years, as he drifts into borderline abuse repeatedly. for posting what is a fine example of ]: here is an admin coming to my page looking for a fight. In my long term observation, TRM is a bully who should desysopped. Am I, and others who take issue with his hostile bluster, correct? I propose the community send this admin shootout to ArbCom, who can take evidence, look at the long term histories of both admins carefully, and apply sanctions. Common justice and the long term health of the 'pedia calls for no less. ]]] 06:05, 25 June 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> | |||
| :I think this may be a good idea, since right now TRM is (or was) blocked and can't speak up at this ANI. We should at least let him have his say somewhere -- either unblock him and let him speak here, or let ArbCom check into the situation. Either way, no matter what, I think Kww's secret edit-block filter and his mass deletions/blankings of awards articles have both got to go. If it takes ArbCom for that, ArbCom it should be. ] (]) 06:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::TRM is unblocked but might be asleep or something. Any arb proceeding would of course have to look at both. Floq's suggestion of waiting overnight and seeing if people are thinking more clearly tomorrow sounds good from the perspective of arb cases being messy proceedings that we should try to avoid. On the other hand, there's enough evidence of long term problems that maybe we need a case. ] (]) 07:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I received a brief email from TRM (who I don't know from Adam and have never interacted with or received communications from) that "I am actually unblocked but in these circumstances I usually just let things play out." (I guess he noticed my post above.) I agree on both points that you made. ] (]) 07:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since when it P.S. Hoffman a BLP anyway? He's been dead 18 months. | |||
| ::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. – ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm utterly astounded that an editor as shitty as Kww is an admin in all honesty. He completely lacks the temperament and fair minded approach to content to be worth of admin tools. If The Rambling Man agrees I'd suggest a desysopping of Kww and topic ban from editing award articles. His editing was disruptive, and TRM was clearly trying to protect content.♦ ] 07:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * I was confused about this as well, but then looked at the two editing histories. Hoffman is dead, but ] isn't. ] 09:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yet it all started from Hoffman. Look at the timeline, he started blanking the Hoffman article, edit warring with TRM, claiming he was exempt from 3RR and warning him using the justification it was a BLP. Then, ], he moved to the Jackman's article. But all started from the Hoffman "BLP". I have to agree with Blofeld, I used to (also publicly) apprecciate Kww, but at this point he should be desypopped and topic banned from awards articles as a minimum. Except if he will post an extensive and convincing apology for all the bullshit he made and said in the last hours, obviously. ] 10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose'''. TRM has done nothing to warrant an ArbCom sanction here. If it wasn't for the awful ] and against-policy step Kww took in blocking him, this would never have reached ANI, let alone anything more. I do, however, '''support''' taking Kww to ArbCom. Flagrant misuse of the tools, and his subsequent refusal to see any other point but his own (an inflexibility of attitude he has shown in other quarters) do warrant a closer scrutiny. - ] (]) 08:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* If you take Kww to ArbCom, TRM will be a named party anyway and his conduct will be examined. In the end it doesn't really matter whether the title of the proposed case is "Kww" or "Kww and TRM". ] 09:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| *'''Support''' although this discussion isn't required, as any person can file at Arb. That said, there are several questions here, beyond the involved block, and the only body empowered with deciding these issues is Arb, leaving us no choice. ] - ] 11:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal: disable Kww's filter=== | |||
| I propose that Kww's filter is disabled immediately. If he wants to have a filter or bot that flags up '''to him''' when edits are being made I don't have an issue, but I ''do'' object to this mindless/automated process which does this. Valid edits ''have'' been blocked by this filter, which should have been a red flag to anyone with a more flexible approach. The loss of the information from those edits, and the associated goodwill makes it clear this should be removed. I'd also strongly suggest to Kww, that rather than the knee-jerk reversions he seems so fond of, it takes only a shade longer to look for a bloody source! These are high profile people and are normally high-profile awards, so a simple search shows whether there is a problem. '''That''' is how you build an encyclopaedia, not by relying on flaming filters and bots to block good faith contributions. - ] (]) 07:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support'''. The secret edit-block filter, and the mass-deletion & content-restoration–prevention way it is being used, are a mind-bogglingly unilateral defiance of Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I was going to make this comment above but here seems the better option now. I wanted to make the point that there are genuine reasons for keeping some edit filters hidden; some are quite easy to avoid if you know how the filter works. This is particularly important for ] cases and other high priority vandalism. I've known some LTA users to vandalise the edit filter requests page, making it quite clear that they know there is an edit filter logging their edits. On the other hand if a filter is set to disallow, it's not hard to get to that filter if it disallows your edit. Being able to read what it does would make some filters alarmingly easy to get around. That said, I'm not at all convinced that this is the kind of filter that should be set to hidden. It's not the kind that would be detrimental to the project if avoided, and I agree that transparency should only be avoided if absolutely necessary. ] (]) 08:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' -- as per SchroCat's rationale above. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' per above, and further possible sanctions. I did try to restore Jackman's awards page and starting sourcing it and the filter blocked me with a ridiculous warning that ''every'' single award should be sourced and that anything else isn't acceptable.♦ ] 08:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support'''. To be blocking edits automatically based on a non-existent "BLP" rule invented by the creator is completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I'd go so far as to say that the very existence of this filter illustrates a sufficient ] issue that I'd support desysopping, even though it would mean the timesink of an Arbcom case since I presume KWW's "I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" reactions above signify that he'd rather go down in flames than admit he's made a mistake, let alone resign voluntarily. – ] 08:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I have to agree with this this proposal. If it simply warns an administrator about a potentially poor addition that's one thing. But that's too much power for a personal bot. The thing is, this is one personal administrative bot that we know of. Is this type of thing common among administrators? I mean I really have no idea if multiple other invisible bots like this exist and this just happened to be one we found out about. It gives the feel of some ] dystopian society. ] (]) 08:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Filters shouldn't be unilaterally implemented, as it opens them up to abuse. There needs to be consensus. — ] (]) 08:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' - this filter appears to have been added unilaterally without any noticeboard discussion or consensus viz ] "''Implementation of AbuseFilter on Misplaced Pages is done with due caution — most abuse filters should be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("warn", "disallow" or "throttle" modes).''" I see no evidence this happened. Sam is right that per ] we shouldn't publicly disclose filters, but just a reassurance from other admins that the filters are okay would help, which we don't have. After all, {{u|ClueBot NG}} does all its vandalism reverting out in the open using a ], which means keeping filter regexes secret is ''not necessary'', as ] will stop them anyway. Work smarter, not harder! ] ] ] 08:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - conditional on complete transparency regarding all other such filters. I had no idea such things existed, and per Fyunck, I am uneasy regarding all such "bots" in operation without scrutiny and oversight. I'd like to see a complete list of such bots. ]]] 08:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Their existence is not a state secret—you can see the full list ] (KWW's filter is #661). As Sam Walton says above, the exact rules of some of the anti-vandal ones are intentionally kept secret to prevent people working around them. – ] 08:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can understand the need for circumspection when filters are intended to catch out LTA stuff but not otherwise. That this one appears to have slipped through (or, at least, no-one saw it as a potential problem) makes me think we may need some sort of review mechanism for filters current and future. - ] (]) 08:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Per much of what the others say. --] (]) 09:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I've gone through the edit filter log, and checked the filters in question, #640 and #661 (which is what I assume we're talking about here). They're hidden so I can't tell you what they do but I think the implementation is weak, with admins complaining about false positives. I see that other admins have had problems with ]. And I think the ] could be implemented more intelligently. ] ] ] 09:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' it seems pointless to actually ''disable'' these filters, as they don't actually seem to produce many false positives. I assume therefore we are talking about setting the filters to log-only or warn, as opposed to disallow? ] 09:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*But they ''do'' produce false positives, with all the crappy side effects that go with it (loss of goodwill, annoyance with the Misplaced Pages software etc) It's disheartening for good faith editors doing the right thing and then not being allowed to save their work. If Kww wants to reconfigure this filter to ping him when there is a problem so that he can deal with it directly, that's fine, but not as this obstructive faceless and Orwellian mechanism that does little good to anyone. - ] (]) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I would be very happy to see such a filter applied to controversial awards such as from the porn industry. I could understand extending the filter to other specific awards if we had a bunch of vandals repeatedly adding that award in a vandalising way, such as claiming various Islamic scholars had been awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Israeli Defense Force. I might also support changing our software generally to prompt people for a source either for all articles or all BLPs, but only if such a change was reflected in our policies, guidelines, training material and the user interface in a way that was consistent and user friendly. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 09:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per SchroCat. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Burn it with fire''' per Ritchie333, Blofeld and Iridescent. Also a close review of other filters eventually created/used by KWW is necessary if not urgent. ] 11:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Convert to Warn'''. Blocking is unjustified, but unsourced cruft is a plague on Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per iridescent, at least for now. Ultimately, Arb should decide the fate of all this. This is simply too large an issue for ANI, where we lack any tools to sanction admin actions. ] - ] 11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' take ''what'' to Arbcom? The fact that KWW ''actualy'' enforced BLP on an article? There's no question that's what he was doing, and there's no question his block was correct. I have a better idea, shut down that idea and lay off KWW <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">] ]</span> 11:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's that got to do with edit filters? If we blocked everyone who violated one admin's opinion of BLP, we'd have no editors left. It drives me nuts about people adding tabloidish sources to ] all the time, but I've never block over it unless there are repeated ''ad-hominem'' attacks added to it. Which is not what we have here. ] ] ] 11:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Block evasion by ] == | |||
| {{archive top|{{nac}} New sock blocked. Thanks to M for the report and to BH for the block ]|] 22:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Is now {{User|Futurewiki The Third}}. Thank you. ] (]) 22:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Editor FTT has been notified about this thread on their talk page. ]|] 22:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{done}} I've already handled ] and indeffed.<br /> — ] ] 22:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Hoaxing at ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{archivetop|No admin action necessary here, the content has been removed. ] (]) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (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) | |||
| {{User|Rossdale1987}} apparently introduced hoax material to the BLP ], which was reported in Daily Mail Australia . — ] (]) 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I mean the hoax was reported, not this particular username. ] (]) 22:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Insults == | |||
| == Disruptive reversions by user == | |||
| {{archivetop|No admin action requested or necessary. Discuss content issues on the ]. ] (]) 23:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has been reverting my edits on ] article (which consisted in adding one portrait of him), stating that "only one image per section is allowed" - see and then alleging that there are enough pics of Rosas in military uniform (!), as he said on . I consider his reversions were out of place, so why can't I add an image to the article? (also considering that the pic is PD, with no restrictions as NFCC images have), being removed in abusive behaviour from this editor. | |||
| When I went to his talkpage to request an explanation for the reversions, his reply was as not as polite as I expected, replying to my requests with terms such as "you're just an annoying child". (as can be seen ), also blanking the page after the discussion, because "he has no time for children" (). Under those circunstamces, I have no hope to reach an agreement (at least in good terms) with this user.- ] (]) 22:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *You're both experienced editors, lets keep that in mind. I'm not familiar with any "one picture per section" rule, maybe that is what he is used to with FAs and GAs, but it isn't a hard rule here. I also noticed you reverting his talk page and telling him about his needing to archive. That isn't true, he can delete whatever he likes, archive or not, it is his choice, his page. That said, {{u|Lecen}}'s tone on that talk page is less than civil. He may be right on many merits, but that doesn't justify the tone, and he could stand to dial it back. That is much better than nickel and diming with sanctions. Really, the whole article seems to be on the verge of going to ], which is about content, and content seems to be the source of all the frustration. Maybe just taking it there is the best choice. ] - ] 22:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **There ] and never has been. Here's ] which hasn't caused the world to cave in. Multiple ''similar'' images is frowned on, however, unless there's a specific reason to include each of the images. – ] 22:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| *{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
| This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
| Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm open to discuss the matter here or wherever it can be solved. I don't think the "one picture per section" (if exists, which I don't think so) can be used as argument for reversion. About archiving pages, I asume to have been wrong so other editors had told me that was mandatory here. Therefore I made a mistake. I just want to feel free of adding images to Rosas or any other article when I consider appropriate, without being reverting with explanations about doubtful rules that are not in any MOS. The image that I had added was not similar to any other of the article so it is a litographic portrait of the subject. - ] (]) 23:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| By points: | |||
| :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. | |||
| #The first time I met Fmal12 was a couple of days ago when he uploaded a hideous modified version of his own of Rosas' picture. I reverted him and told him to upload his version in another file, per Commons' rules. He said that he had never heard such rule before and threatened me by telling me that he'd report me if I didn't do what he wanted. Well, he did report and others told him that I was indeed correct and that he should have uploaded a new image. | |||
| :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. | |||
| #A day later he adds a picture of Rosas in profile to the article. I reverted it, for several reasons. | |||
| :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. | |||
| #First reason: the article is in the middle of a FAC review. It is '''not''' "on the verge of going to ]". An editor is being kind enough to copyedit the article while he adds tags so that I (the editor who wrote and nominated the article) can fix after he's done with his work. | |||
| :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. | |||
| #Second reason: Since the article is in the middle of a FAC review, it means that it has already passed through an image review. Anyone who is experienced with FAC knows how serious image reviews are as to avoid copyright violations, etc... | |||
| :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) | |||
| #Third reason: there are already '''TWO''' other images of Rosas in profile in the article, all of them in color and of much higher quality than the one added by Fma12. As I pointed out to him, MoS is pretty clear about adding several similar pictures. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| #Not content enough with my revert, what is the first thing Fma12 does? He threatens me again saying that he'll report me. He didn't even tried to talk first. He threatened first. I said that with that kind of behavior, threatening others before even talking, I wouldn't take him seriously, because that is at least a childish behavior. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| #Take notice all of you that so far Fma12 hasn't opened a thread at the article's talk page. He has limited the entire issue as a problem between him and I. It's childish and inappropriate. He should have seen that NO ONE else bothered to revert me, or to side with him. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| There you go. I really don't have time with immature users such as him. Especially one that opens two threads at ANI because the first was ignored and removes the second by claiming that he is "said". What kind of behavior is that? "Do as I say or I'll cry to my mom"? It's ridiculous. --] (]) 23:10, 24 June 2015 (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) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ::::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. == | |||
| == Hillary Clinton == | |||
| 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--> | |||
| Recently, it was decided that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article should be moved to {{pagelinks|Hillary Clinton}} in this well attended ]; the major factor in the decision was that Hillary Clinton is her common name, per the closing panel . Since then, users (myself included) have tried changing the name at the top of the infobox from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, per ], which says it should be the "common name of person." Several users, however, have fought this vehemently essentially ]. There are now two threads on the talk page. In the ], consensus seems to be for using the common "HC." So someone who didn't like that change started a ] and again consensus seems to be in favor of sticking with the common name. But yet, some users won't drop the stick . ] ]|] 00:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : What action are you requesting from Admins in regards to this? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've full-protected this article for two weeks to prevent further edit warring. Use the talk page is the general answer to be applied here.<br /> — ] ] 01:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've just blocked admin {{u|Jonathunder}} for editing through that protection.<br /> — ] ] 01:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **{{u|Berean Hunter}} Are you sure it wasn't inadvertent? The timestamps are awfully close. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***I just noted this on Berean Hunter's talk page but, per a test on my sandbox page, it turns out that an admin who opens an edit window on an unprotected article receives no warning when they save that edit, if the article was protected while they were editing. I did not test if you preview, that may show the warning, but a straight open-edit, (type), "save" goes straight through. No sign of the red screen you normally get if you start editing a protected article... I did not previously know that. ] (]) 01:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **** It seems rather odd to protect the version that represents a change from a decade-long status quo. Isn't the general rule that the status quo stands until consensus exists to change it? Also, the block seems uncalled for in this case. ] ] 01:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****Admins can block other admins? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 01:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Of course they can - if there's a reason to do so. ] ] 01:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****{{ec}} @BD2412: I agree the block seems uncalled for, as evidence is pretty clear that there's reasonable doubt he knew it was protected. However, BD2412 is incorrect regarding returning to the status quo in an edit war. Whatever state the article is in ''when it is protected'' is all that matters (absent egregious BLP issues, which this isn't). Admins aren't supposed to pick sides, and that includes not granting preference to a first mover or second mover, or really anyone. You click the "protect" button, and whatever state it is in when you click it, that's where it is supposed to stay. --]] 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******Agree that there's reasonable doubt; I recommend unblocking Jonathunder for now. If it continues, well... — ] (]) 01:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *******Already unblocked but it didn't happen the way that it should. We were trying to work this out and BD2412 unblocked without checking first. I just wanted to know that Jona wasn't going to edit through the protection which seems reasonable to me.<br /> — ] ] 02:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******** That could have been accomplished with a warning. This is not the kind of circumstance justifying an approach of block first, ask questions later. ] ] 02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :For what it's worth, I just filed a bug on about this. I would post on wikitech but my non-work email phone is in my pocket at the moment. ] (]) 02:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both actions seem like knee-jerk reactions, poorly thought-out. I would expect more from an admin. ] (]) 02:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm involved, so forgive me for commenting at all. However, I find it outrageous that a dispute that has only been a matter of content (not behaviour), and which is being discussed on the talk page, was brought to AN/I by an involved party for no reason whatsoever, merely because he didn't like how the discussion was going. The result was that his preferred version was protected, deviating from a decade-long status quo. Outrageous. ] — ] 02:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* It amazes me that there's not already a guideline that Infobox titles have to match the article title. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Calidum and a couple of others are failing to get consensus on their preferred change so they began edit-warring to force their change and immediately came here to get their preferred version enforced by admin action. Berean Hunter kindly obliged, locking their version in for '''''two weeks'''''. Now Berean is whining that his block-first-ask-questions-later block was overturned. This is farcical. Undo the page protection and warn or sanction the editors who are trying (and now apparently succeeding with the help of Berean) to bully their way through a content dispute by edit-warring. | |||
| :Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This was a brief edit war, precipitated by Callidm and his buddies, and should have been dealt with by a stern warning or two. Not by knee-jerk blocking and rewarding the edit-warriors by locking the article in their version for two weeks. Would someone please undo the page protection, warn all parties about edit-warring and then leave the editors to get on with editing the article in accordance with policy? --] (] · ] · ]) 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not the one that is whining to try to get . You aren't really a neutral observer are you? I would have been unblocking so your assessment is off from a lack of understanding. I would have liked ] to have been adhered to regarding undoing another's admin action for the sake of courtesy. That's all. Okay, you can go back to bitching now.<br /> — ] ] 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hey. I boldly edited that page once. It was reverted. It was discussed. That's how we do it here. That's not whining. That's not edit-warring to get my way, like Calidum and his buddies, whom you have just rewarded for their bullying by locking this highly topical article in their version for two damn weeks. | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| Per ], would you please tell me what purpose that full page protection is serving? I see discussion occurring on the talk page and one trivial edit war which can be addressed with warnings. What are you seeing? --] (] · ] · ]) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * This is taking lame edit wars to a whole new level. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:56, 25 June 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) | |||
| == Legal Threat? == | |||
| == ] Semi-Protection == | |||
| Is a legal threat? He says that people will be "charged". Also this page greatly needs pending changes protection.]<sup>]</sup> 03:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * It is certainly a "threat", but it is not clear that the author means that editors who defy his preference will be "reported/charged" in an external legal setting. ] ] 03:33, 25 June 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) | |||
| :The article is already semi'd. Pending changes won't stop this particular person, who is autoconfirmed. -- ] (]) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{EC}}I don't think it is a "legal" threat. But it is certainly improper. -] (]) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's clearly not a legal threat.] (]) 03:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok.]<sup>]</sup> 03:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I read this more as a threat to report editors who violate Vikramadityachandel's POV to someone here in Misplaced Pages. This editor has a history of parochial edits like this . '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So he regularly puts threats in his edits? Thats kind of funny.]<sup>]</sup> 03:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Looking back at it though it does look alot like there's an ownership issue here.] (]) 03:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd call it ]. ] -] 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes that would seem to be the case.] (]) 05:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Meh. This is probably prompted by te international yoga day thing. Some of the user's edits are strongly Hindu nationalist in tone, but some are inoffensive. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] ignoring discussion on talk page == | |||
| == Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions == | |||
| The probblem with this user is that he started editing the ] article after abandoning the discussion on the talk page. The matter is the geographical location of Armenia, an issue which is going on here since years (interestingly, on other main wikipedias there is no problem at all about it), and that causes recurring edit warring bursts. Several lenghty discussions on the talk page established consensus that Armenia - altough in many respects can be considered an european country - lies geographically in Western Asia, and that in order to change this info one should find reliable geographical sources (this means geographical institutions, since physical geography is a science) showing a different geographical (not political) definition of Europe. In other words, if the Armenian academy of Sciences adopts a definition of Europe with its south east border at the Persian Gulf, we should take it in the article. Unfortunately, until now all the users pretending that Armenia lies geographically in Europe failed to provide these sources, bringing only sources which define Armenia "Europe" playing on the ambiguity between geographical and political definition of Europe. User:MELB1110 makes no exception to this behaviour. He abandoned the discussion, and edited the article first inserting as source for the geographic location of Armenia the BBC (). After my revertion assuming good faith, he brought a web site with a map showing Armenia ''in its political boundaries'' as belonging to Europe (). He ignored my comments on the talk page ( and, in response to another user sharing my same opinion ) and after my revert assuming good faith he started to edit warring (). | |||
| {{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear admin, | |||
| User:MELB1110 is clearly POV pushing (see also these edits on the same line - and - about Cyprus, both reverted), refusing to get the point, ignoring the lack of present consensus and going against consensus previously established (also in other threads in the archives) on the talk page. I would like to point out too that the article about Armenia is subjected to discretionary sanctions by administrators, so that any editor should be very careful in dealing with this article. I brought this case already to the edit warring noticeboard, but there no action has been taken. ] (]) 05:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform. | |||
| I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future. | |||
| == OttonielWhite/Elindiord == | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. | |||
| {{Userlinks|OttonielWhite}} has resumed making Twinkle reverts of valid edits without any edit summaries after the expiration of a one-month block for sockpuppetry. The sockpuppet, {{Userlinks|Elindiord}}, was twice blocked for the same behavior. This editor obviously does not understand what is wrong with their actions, has made no attempt to communicate, and should be blocked to prevent further disruption. ] (]) 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ] ] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:08, 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)
- After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus
There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
- As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
- On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
TPA for 83.106.86.95
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
83.106.86.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions
This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)