| Revision as of 15:35, 5 September 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Ghirlandajo: Three hours to cool down.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:02, 24 December 2024 edit undoHex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators25,176 editsm →Darkwarriorblake making aspersions: Can't leave it with a typoTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}} | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <!-- ~>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| <!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> | |||
| |maxarchivesize =800K | |||
| <!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> | |||
| |counter = 1174 | |||
| =={{user|Indrancroos}}== | |||
| |algo = old(72h) | |||
| ] has turned the indian martial arts discussion page from a discussion about the merits of the article to a discussion about me... he has accused me of racism on multiple occasions, and yet has yet to substantiate anything about any statements that i have said that are racist... he has yet been able to bring in any statements of racism that i have made... i have attempted to tell him to stop doing this and yet he continues... two whole pages of the discussion panel consist of his ramblings...] 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| == Globallycz == | |||
| {{Atop|This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--] (]) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Misplaced Pages for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. ] (]) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==From SledDogAC== | |||
| :Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. ] (]) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The information I have added to the webpages is all correct and verifiable. I have provided documentation for what I write, in sharp contrast to AKMask's edits. AKMask doesn't want wikipedia to be neutral. This person has an a pro-Iditarod, pro-musher agenda that he or she only wants the public to know. If wikipedia wants to be held in high regard, it will ban administrators and editors like AKMask who act like dictators to keep facts from being told. I certainly don't deserve to be banned. Here's an example of what I've added and what has been repeatedly deleted by AKMask: (removed due to enormity) | |||
| ::It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. ] (]) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] violations by {{User|Polaron}}, massive page moves == | |||
| :::The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. ] (]) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See ] if you don't know how to make a diff. ] (]) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. ] (]) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read ]. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken ]. ] (]) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again. | |||
| :::::::i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. ] (]) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. ] (]) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|You have both broken ]}} - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. ] (]) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the ''only'' person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as {{tq|lazy}} is ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. ] (]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::], nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by ] and ], which are ] (in fact, one of the ]), and ''not'' some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. ] (]) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly. | |||
| *:::::Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily. | |||
| *:::::Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. ] (]) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you. | |||
| *::::::Though if you choose ] and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. ] (]) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that '''you''' also got off too lightly. | |||
| *:::::::Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. ] before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. ] (]) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. ] (]) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I looked at the ] and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and '''all''' of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.{{pb}}I also looked at the edits to ] that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. ] (]) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::You are not being reasonable and fair | |||
| *::::::::::(1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names. | |||
| *::::::::::(2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too. | |||
| *::::::::::1. WP Osmanthus fragrans: | |||
| *::::::::::Date: Jul 2022 | |||
| *::::::::::Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits | |||
| *::::::::::2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) | |||
| *::::::::::Date: 1 Nov 2021 | |||
| *::::::::::Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references | |||
| *::::::::::3. WP Wunmi Mosaku | |||
| *::::::::::Date: 17 Sep 2021 | |||
| *::::::::::Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date | |||
| *::::::::::In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof. | |||
| *::::::::::I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too. | |||
| *::::::::::He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. ] (]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. ] (]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. ] (]) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a ] seems to suggest ]. On their talk page, they ]: {{tq|q=y|Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution}}. They ]: {{tq|q=y| For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route.}} Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a ] in ] edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state: {{tq|q=y|I am highlighting a problem here}} If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. ] (]) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| ==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action== | |||
| {{User|Polaron}} has unilaterally moved dozens of pages, in violation of ]. Japanese cities in the form ''cityname, prefecturename'' were massively moved to ''cityname City''. Polaron is claiming ] should override ], but many users oppose this, and discussion/polling is now taking place at ]. Polaron has started a similar poll in ] and ] to drop state names from the cities, so he is on a personal crusade to drop state (and prefecture) names from ALL cities in the world. Please advise if this IS, in fact, a violation of ]. Also, how can we reverse his massive changes?--] 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :If the redirect page has not been edited, non-admins can simply reverse the redirect without any trouble. ] 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (]) | |||
| ::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 ] == | |||
| His moves are clearly against consensus on the Japanese MOS. I have reverted all of them. Please let me know if he attempts a massive page move episode like this again. Thanks. ] | ] 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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 . | |||
| :Thank you for reverting and fixing everything. I think everything is back to normal, and we are having a civil discussion now.--] 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll point out that this person is a highway editor, and has mass moved there too. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I saw that but I am not familiar with the highway debate and what consensus is there. Someone involved with that needs to check those moves. ] | ] 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I looked at his contribs and didn't see any recent highway moves, maybe I missed them. I can't be the blocker though as I'm involved. ++]: ]/] 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This was a while ago though. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Did they all get sorted? I'd be inclined, at this remove, to not do anything about it, then. Or ask him to help sort them out if they're not, and nothing more. ++]: ]/] 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to ] to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I on the talk page of the relevant article, the user and according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to ], both and , they ] stating {{tq|ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it|q=y}}, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading and and . I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and . | |||
| == User:Netscott == | |||
| <!-- 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) | |||
| For weeks now ] has been agitating concerning ] uploaded by SlimVirgin. He kept insisting that the image be , against the objections of SlimVirgin and other editors. Netscott then tried to have it deleted as a derivative image; though the photographer had released it, Netscott claimed the poster in the photograph itself hadn't been properly released. Jkelly then proposed that the photograph be used under the photographer's release, and the poster image on the photograph itself under Fair Use. Netscott then objected, saying that we couldn't claim Fair Use on the poster unless we knew the name of the artist. SlimVirgin then went and discovered the name of the artist, and added it on the image page. Netscott then claimed it wasn't Fair Use based on "Counterexample 4". When this was shot down, he complained about the name of the image, insisting it was making claims of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin then uploaded the image under a new "neutral" name that didn't mention anti-Semitism. Netscott then kept trying to attach the new image to the old name which contained the name anti-Semitism, trying again to make that linkage. When this was reverted, Netscott then tried to associate the name of the artist with ANSWER, a controversial group, and continually kept associating the poster creator's name with anti-Semitism on all sorts of Talk: pages and message boards, trying to get the image deleted again, ostensibly out of concerns about ], but in actuality excacerbating any BLP concerns, since it was Netscott alone who kept making this connection, in a dozen different places. SlimVirgin then removed the name of the poster creater from the image page; at this point Netscott then insisted on listing the image as a Copyright violation, claiming the artist was no longer attributed. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| The image itself is quite famous; it's been reproduced and discussed on a number of famous blogs and websites, and has been discussed in the media. Netscott's purpose here seems to be to troll as much as possible, agitating in any way possible to get the image deleted, while possibly endangering Misplaced Pages itself by deliberately associating an individual's name with anti-Semitism. In his relatively brief Misplaced Pages career Netscott has been blocked 8 times already. In fact he would still be under his last block, for a week, if not for the fact that an admin involved in a content dispute on Netscott's side unblocked him and re-blocked for a day instead. I'm suggesting a 1 week block at this point, though I'm open to the idea of an indefinite block as well. Thoughts? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Netscott was blocked for a week on August 25 by ] for persistent 3RR violations, but unfortunately ], who was involved in that particular content dispute with Netscott, reduced the block to 24 hours. Otherwise none of this trolling would have happened. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
| :Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| ::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===None of this matters=== | |||
| I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Was mildly involved in some of the early issues, but would also support a week long block for persistent trolling and disruption. Given the user's other productive edits I do not think an indefinite block is called for at this point. ] 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Total misrepresentation of the facts here. My efforts relative to this image has been to properly establish neutral point of view relative to it. is what my first edit relative to this issue consisted of. Without any discussion whatsoever {{user|SlimVirgin}} my addition. Because Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox we're not to be making statements about what a given piece of content is (this is clearly spelled out in ]). On every turn my efforts in this direction have been thwarted. I even went so far as to ] illustrative of how a caption needs to read in order for Misplaced Pages to meet neutral point of view. Unfortunately ] and to a lesser extent ] have demonstrated ownership on this article to the point that virtually all of my good faith edits were reverted. SlimVirgin even went so far as to say that SHE had to verify my edits. ???? With that image as the lead for ] and with no in article text about reliable and verifiable sources statements included Misplaced Pages is seriously in jeapordy of libel relative to branding this artist's work anti-Semitic and in consequence the artist himself. A good number of editors have been supportive of my efforts including ], ], ], ] (in WikiEn-i) , ], ] to name a few. A number of ] to an RfC I started also were supportive of my suggestions. All of the editing I've done has been in good faith. I've made ] to discuss this matter to try to come to a consensus and I've been shut down on all sides by these two editors. ] is the BLP discussion wherein I expressed the very real case that Misplaced Pages is in libel relative to the artist by publishing his work as the lead image and thereby implying that it is an example of ] (particularly when there's no sources cited in the article as saying that). Both SlimVirgin and Jayjg have themselves expressed concern about libel by contravening ] in removing the artist's name from the image page itself (for an image to qualify for fair use an artist or copyright holder '''must''' be attributed). I'll have more to say on this but I need to step out for a bit. ''(]])'' 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is absolute nonsense. Geni, Gmaxwell, and FastFission did not support Netscott, and in fact several people questioned why he was posting to the mailing list about it. (Geni's position was that we needed the name of the copyright holder, and we now have it.) Liftarn did support Netscott, because Liftarn also wants the image gone at any cost. The image has been discussed with Jkelly and the matter settled. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::The issue is not the image now, but the trolling. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are using the word "trolling" to discount my efforts (in a very ] way). The reality is that I spent the of the day replacing deprecated templates and editing on the infrastructure of the ] (like that shortcut itself) noticeboard (and {{]}} template). I even ] about it. It was only when you didn't transfer the old image's talk page to the newly named image that a dispute arose. I even ] about that. ''(]])'' 04:12, 1 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :::User's editing style appears disruptive and tendencious. ] 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm == | |||
| :::: I agree that such disruptive behavior should be stopped. ←] <sup>]</sup> 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Indefed until communication improves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}} | |||
| Hi, I recently came across the edits of {{U|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}}, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Misplaced Pages (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being . Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at ], , have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article , which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., ), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., ), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., ). At ], the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me . At ], some Swedish IP Addresses (which are ), have created . Per ], I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... ] (]) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Misplaced Pages, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time ( ). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. ] (]) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I just asked Netscott to walk away from the article and image in question. Waiting for his response.--] 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (]), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 ) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 ). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —] (]) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I just blocked him for 48 hrs. He still should be able to edit his Talk page. Please LMK if you feel it was inappropriate. ←] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The excessive additions to ] and ], based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on ] but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors. | |||
| ::Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —] (]) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. ] | ] 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC). | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| Edit conflicted for the fifth time - I was the original blocker and was briefed about an IRC conversation which lead to the unblock after Netscott was unblocked. At no time was I informed that Bastique was himself involved in editing the part of the article in question let alone the general sphere of Jewish editing. I am quite unimpressed by the excessive levels of agitation which have been employed, in particular when he tags the pic as a copyvio of wikipedia. Leaning 1 week, definitely not indef, as Netscott is a serious contributor. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not suggesting an indef block, but I take issue with the serious contributor thing. Looking through his contribs, the signal-to-noise ratio isn't good. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree entirely with El_C and Blnguyen. The editing style emplyed by Netscott was overly aggressive, and he has been disruptive in this matter. I also note that I have asked Humus that Netscott be unblocked in the interim so that he can fairly address issues raised here. -- ] <small>]</small> 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Samir, if he is unblocked to discuss it, he'll just use this as the latest plaftorm for the disruption. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should he disrupt here, SlimVirgin, he will be blocked. But I think it is only fair for him to get a chance to say his side civilly -- ] <small>]</small> 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It should not take a village to upload an image to Misplaced Pages. That Netscott has made it so troubles me. I support a week block. Netscott, you can email me with your concerns and ideas about the image and I will follow up. ] 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you Humus sapiens for unblocking me. I will not post outside of this thread for the next 48 hours out of respect for you and Samir (the scope) (obviously it's other's perogative if I'm to be re-blocked). Seriously if I had not been treated with such disregard and lack of dignity when I first started editing on this article things probably wouldn't have come to this. At every turn my edits have been reverted first discussed second. How does that foster a good collaborative environment? ''(]])'' 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see, so you tried to get the image deleted under 5 different bogus rationales because you were treated with "disregard and lack of dignity"? Thank you for comfirming your ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's not much left for that image. Its not 'free', but its no longer tagged as such anymore anyways. Netscott tagging {{TI|copyvio}} with the url point to a revision of the image page is a rather strange way to dispute the image, but only thing left is dispution of the fair use rationale. ] 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jayjg, is it improper to insist that images are in compliance with Fair use policy? Is it improper to insist that Misplaced Pages not defame an artist with poorly sourced statements about his art being "anti-Semitic" (particularly not including such statements in the article). When I came to the article there was virtually no relevant text in it's caption relative to the image. Here's what the caption read when I started to call for NPOV on it: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "A placard at a ], ], anti-war rally in ]. Photograph by zombie of ''zombietime.com''. " | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Essentially the image was "there" as the perfect example of ]. Then after my efforts and comments by ] about ] {{user|SlimVirgin}} added some text to at least establish the image's relevance to the rest of the article like so: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| But where are the reliable sources in that caption? This sets up negative details relative to the artist and as such reliable and verifiable sources need to be ] in support of such negative details. ''(]])'' 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If it's determined here that I'm to be reblocked for any length of time then I would just recommend indef. blocking me with the {{]}} tag and all. I probably spend too much time on the project as it is and an indef. block would just motivate me to '''fully''' step away from it. I've put too much effort into this project to be treated so disrespectfully and with a lack of dignity the way that I have been in this circumstance particularly by ]. The funny thing is that you almost can't go anywhere now on Misplaced Pages and not see an example my work in one of my creations. ''(]])'' 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::These are some of the so-called anti-imperialists we have today. "A war ''for'' Israel." So ignorant of the nature of imperialist-dependence, always up for the instant ] gratification. Netscott, you are editing tendenciously because you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Misplaced Pages policy. That caption does not need ''reliable sources'', it highlights what the image evokes, and some interpretive leeway is afforded there. It's unrealistic to expect one to find a source which says these things about that image, which makes that line of reasoning tendencious. Similarly, invoking ] is also tendencious, as it was in ]. ] 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In reference to the above, I feel that Netscott has been editing in an escessively agitatory and diruptive manner unconducive to teh improvement and production of quality articles, so I have enacted a block of 7 days, as this has been exhibited previously in many 3RR blocks. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page. | |||
| :Netscott is also the behind evidence against established editors in his case before the Arbitration Committee. Netscott has cynically encouraged and used His excellency to Misplaced Pages of and insufficiently anti-Jewish editors, who he claims are using .] 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Slim, did you really mean to revert to keep that disgusting allegation from on this page? And "Postmonger", nice work against a blocked editor who can't defend himself here. Haven't you been insisting that ''I'm'' that hidden hand, or don't you find that quite as safe? The same accusation against me has more substance, if anything (although please note that the arbcom seems ). ] | ] 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::::Hi Bish, I don't know either of the players. I only reverted an anon who was removing a post. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just noticed this. Netscott gets blocked for 48 hours, and then you block him for 7 days without additional cause? This is extremely bad administative behavior on our part, and goes many lengths to support the claims that we are acting as a Cabal. You're being excessively punitive, and acting on mob mentality. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, Bastique, it was you who triggered this. You reduced Netscott's last block in violation of ] even though you were involved in the content dispute on his side. It's clear to anyone looking at this that Netscott has developed an unhealthy obsession and needs a substantial cooldown period. It was to be hoped he'd realize that on this own, but he didn't, and therefore the 7-day block was a very good idea. If you hadn't undone it, this latest situation wouldn't have occurred. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually, Slim, it was you who triggered this. Persistent goading of users with insults and threats, knowing that they won't take any action against you, because going up against you means going up against your gang. And any remarks about your own misuse of admin powers will certainly get a user blocked (like out of process oversight, etc.) ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Blame me. I should have blocked him for a week. ←] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You shouldn't be blocking anyone involved on those pages. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't see why not, given that you abused your admin tools in relation to Netscott. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hypocrite. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't see what he's supposed to have done wrong. He was spot on that the image was originally incorrectly tagged as if it were a free image. His fair use concerns have been reasonable. He has been civil. I think he should be unblocked unless some solid evidence of misbehaviour is presented. Saying that he "is trolling" is too vague. He has certainly pursued the matter with determination but so have those on the other side of the argument. ] 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Haukur, please inform yourself fully before commenting. This has been among the most disingenuous trolling I've encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The civility bit is actually subject to debate, but regardless, the tendencious editing-style is a problem — see my comment directly above. ] 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The users in question, the ones calling for Netscott's unwarrented ban, have a habit of distracting from the actual issues. Netscott behaved badly, but in response to other users behaving just as bad. Netscott wasn't warring with himself, unfortunately, he caught a throng of POV warriors who will not tolerate any page other than the way they say it. I actually am very neutral on the particular topics, and try to remain so when working on these pages. | |||
| ::Furthermore, when I was willing to offer a compromise, to try to come to a middle point, I am responded to within minutes with cacaphony of aggression and antagonism, as if there are users repeatedly refreshing their watchlists. How someone can respond within three minutes with such an incredible surge of energy is beyond me, unless they're doing exactly that. Note that I soon got off that article, which most sensible people will do, when faced with such an onslaught of animosity. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nonsense. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not nonsense. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your analysis is factually inaccurate, and you're basing decisions and opinions on limited information. If you were to read all the diffs (going back a couple of weeks), you'd see that Netscott has been massively disruptive around this issue, and that others have not. You'd also see that he has caused similar problems elsewhere, based on a failure to understand our edit policies. You're doing people a disservice by equating behaviors that you've only spent a short time examining. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, because the amount of time spent on this has been ridiculous. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:12, 3 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are users who make it impossible to take a neutral side in their articles, to try and take a common ground to make the articles less POV and more encyclopedic. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 02:22, 2 September 2006 (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) | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| :::Bastique, I find it difficult to believe that you would still attempt to edit under the veil of neutrality on the subject. In every single instance that you have come into contact with an article that even remotely relates to the wider topic, you take the same position and always end up defending the same people, all the while insisting you are a standard of impartiality. Furthermore you do this in such a way that implies authority that must be listened to. Frankly I cannot see a signifigant difference between you and Netscott.- ] | ] 13:42, 2 September 2006 (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 --> | |||
| ::::: Prior to this article, I was responding to complaints at ] that you, and others, owned certain articles and wouldn't allow anyone else to edit who had a difference of opinion from yours. This has happened a number of times with you. If you can't see a significant difference between me and Netscott, its your head is so stuck in your own limited worldview that you can't see anything beyond that. You do have a knack of completely pissing people off, Moshe, and my responses to you might have been tainted with a bit of rage at your accusations and insinuations. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::: Because I'm an admin, I don't edit articles in which I have a strong opinion, or haven't in a considerable time. I have a blog, that's linked from my user page. Try to find anything remotely connected with a pro-Israel or anti-Israel policy. I do have strong opinions. I try to remain objective, and that's why I don't edit articles in which I have strong opinions. | |||
| ::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 opinion is that you guys are POV-pushing in a most nasty manner. When someone trolls and disagrees with your point of view, like Netscott, you get him blocked. When someone trolls and agrees with your point of view, you call him or her a contributor. There is a very large double standard on articles in which Slim Virgin and Jayjg have an opinion. People don't want to edit them if they have a Neutral point of view, because POV pushers like yourself will gather together and eat them alive. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::Prior to this entire incident, I had at least a positive opinion of SlimVirgin. The incessant harping about my actions regarding Netscott, however, are hypocritical to say the least. Netscott deserved unblocking, because the actions should be applied unversally, not just to people whose opinions are not of your own. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 22:06, 2 September 2006 (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 apoligize for how condescending this may sound, but I actually find it funny that you have chosen to take such a tone in your response. You couldn't have shown a better example of the false authority mixed in with inappropriate personal remarks and irrelevant commentary that I pointed to in my previous comment here. Furthermore it is utter nonsense- to add some backround for people who do not know, the "people" I have "pissed off" that Bastique is referring to is ] on the ] article. I seriously invite anyone to look at the record of that user, as he is currently banned for a year after a whole wiki-career of bad behavior. Bastique not only found himself on the same side of the above user, but he rigiously defended his actions while belittling and disrespecting me for not agreeing with him.- ] | ] 11:58, 3 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::::For the record, Bastique, who is supposed to be an administrator, directed Netscott to Misplaced Pages Review. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think Bastique meant that as ironic commentary. I hope that's the case. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was. I'm sure Netscott is more than aware of Misplaced Pages Review. Oddly enough, there are people who are "supposed to be administrators" that regularly comment at Misplaced Pages Review. At least Slim Virgin reads it. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're quite wrong there. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s>Funny.. if you don't read it, why is it that every time they linked to an old edit of yours that Jay would turn around and oversight it?</s> | |||
| ::::::::<s>I've had no more involvement in the issue since I realized that you and Jay had decided to be ]ers of the article and I realized that the group there would soon be accusing me of being anti-jewish if I continued to push for NPOV in the article. ... But I must correct you above, I did support netscotts basic actions if not quite the level of haste and aggressiveness he's carried them with. If it were my call, I'd say the lot of you should be blocked, and the the article should be blanked until you can learn to behave like adults... but I tend towards the draconian like that.--] 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::::::I came off too harsh here and it's not fair to the parties involved. To me it would appear to me that in some subject areas we have a group of dedicated and hardworking users who spending a huge amount of effort protecting the articles against outside bigots and POV pushers. The problem is real, and much of the work they do is good. However, it appears that the stress of this work is causing paranoia... where we see a lurking POV pusher behind every action, even actions by topically disinterested but hard working Wikipedias. This results in a situation where some editors, myself included, are honestly afraid that if they wade in again and argue for neutralizing edits on such articles that they will be cast as some sort of bigot by people who are trying to protect the articles from the actual bigots. This fear translates into frustration and results in a break down of cooperation and communication. So even in the absence of establish article protectors who are themselves POVpushing (which I do believe, from JayJG's unfortunate comments WRT NPOV not applying to images on the enwiki thread that we do have as well) we've still got an environment which is not friendly to cooperation. I don't know how to solve it, but my barb above certainly wouldn't help things. I apologize for that. --] 00:05, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :::::::::: (after edit conflict) I am sorry if some see Moshe, Jayjg or SlimVirgin as part of the problem, because IMHO they are a part of a solution. Not sure where is the right place to address this, but it would be hard to find an article related to Jews that is not under daily attacks: from subtle POV to blatant vandalism. WP's openness and popularity are great but someone needs to keep repairing and NPOVifying it. If you see this process as some kind of conspiracy, too bad. ←] <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| *::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — ] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==59% = consensus?== | |||
| *: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) | |||
| ] may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom ] on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --] (] - ]) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (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. | |||
| :Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 06:00, 1 September 2006 (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." | |||
| :: With more discussion, perhaps a clearer result could ensue - perhaps for a better policy not discussed yet. ] 06:51, 1 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :: You got it right first time. Consensus descisions are strongly non-zero sum. In a debate with only rational agents, nobody actually loses. (though some might not be perfectly happy, of course). | |||
| :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=== | |||
| :: If you think that a majority vote is the only solution to resolving this particular dispute, well ... I don't know... but ok, I'll grant you that point for the sake of conversation today. I'm not going to argue with your actions. | |||
| 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}} | |||
| == user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander == | |||
| :: But let's agree that it definately isn't consensus! :-) | |||
| {{atop|1=Right, we're done here. {{User|Stan1900}} is indef blocked for ] and ] among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ''ban'' below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages. | |||
| ] is a ] dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with . The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films. | |||
| :: ] 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation). | |||
| : On many issues, it doesn't matter in the end which decision is made as long as ''a'' decision is made. This applies especially to trivial matters. If you check the principles in ], you'll see that this is exactly the tack taken by the arbitration committee. --] 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example , and . | |||
| :I've reverted an attempt to close that as "no consensus", since the admins in question appear to still be discussing it... For the record, my opinion is that consensus is a goal, not an absolute requirement; when something has come to a boil (as with the hint from arbcom) and we count heads on it, a clear majority is acceptable if it'll just stop the arguing. ] | ] | 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer. | |||
| ::I've warned SPUI (]) about his try to close and he has replied with an interpretation of ArbCom's directives in this matter that I do not think is supported. If he reverts back to that "rejected" template, I will consider it disruption and will issue a block. His contributions throughout this matter have, in my view, attempted to stymie the functioning of the process to get to an outcome, any outcome so that this trivial matter can be put to bed. ++]: ]/] 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations. | |||
| : Could the remainder of the page be locked from editing to prevent any future vandalism or unwanted editing? I don't think anymore discussion is needed on Part 1 until after the admins cast all of their votes. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including ] and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander. | |||
| All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other. | |||
| I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. ] (]) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into ] for ideas? | |||
| :Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. ] is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. ] (]) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some further background here… | |||
| ::The user has claimed that {{tq| My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander}}. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here . Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits. | |||
| ::The user has also claimed: {{tq|I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Misplaced Pages}} . | |||
| ::However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here ), the user claims to have {{tq|been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics}}, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018. | |||
| ::The user states here that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for {{tq|fact verification}}, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of ] and ]. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per ]. | |||
| ::The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above. | |||
| ::So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. ] (]) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations: | |||
| :::1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Misplaced Pages should be evaluated on those merits. | |||
| :::2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified. | |||
| :::3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Misplaced Pages venues: | |||
| :::- Talk pages for content discussion | |||
| :::- Help desk for process guidance | |||
| :::- NPOV board for neutrality issues | |||
| :::- Each serves a distinct purpose | |||
| :::4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Misplaced Pages contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles. | |||
| :::5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification. | |||
| :::The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever ] (]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::At the end of the day this is all very simple... | |||
| ::::Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added. | |||
| ::::Also, articles on Misplaced Pages do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional). | |||
| ::::You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you. | |||
| ::::The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support. | |||
| ::::Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. ] (]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also see ] and ] that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. ] (]) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. ] (]) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as , there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's . | |||
| :::::::I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. ] (]) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Misplaced Pages's purpose: | |||
| *:1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources. | |||
| *:2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage. | |||
| *:3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions. | |||
| *:4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning. | |||
| *:5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes. | |||
| *:The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns. | |||
| *:I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. ] (]) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::* '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly ] and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). ] (]) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::*:Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent: | |||
| *::*:The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive. | |||
| *::*:The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading. | |||
| *::*:I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration. | |||
| *::*:Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule. | |||
| *::*:WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate. | |||
| *::*:A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies. | |||
| *::*:If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here. | |||
| *::*:Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. ] (]) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::*::The user is now claiming over at COIN that {{tq|Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI}}. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. ] (]) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::*:::Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in {{tq|fact verification}} with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being an {{tq|authorized representative}}. ] (]) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the ] denials. ] (]) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Misplaced Pages channels to ensure images were correctly licensed. | |||
| *:2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV. | |||
| *:3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Misplaced Pages editor might verify facts with a primary source. | |||
| *:4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that: | |||
| *: - All content is properly sourced from independent publications | |||
| *: - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure | |||
| *: - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes | |||
| *: - No promotional content has been demonstrated | |||
| *:I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. ] (]) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900 {{tpq|You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages}}. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and ''repeatedly'' denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been ''repeatedly'' deceptive. Accordingly, I now '''Support''' an indefinite sitewide block. ] (]) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations: | |||
| *:1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Misplaced Pages process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated. | |||
| *:2. Every single piece of content I've contributed: | |||
| *: - Is based on independent, reliable sources | |||
| *: - Follows NPOV guidelines | |||
| *: - Has been properly cited | |||
| *: - Includes balanced coverage | |||
| *: - Has been verified through proper channels | |||
| *:3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Misplaced Pages. The evidence is clear: | |||
| *: - Images reinstated through proper process | |||
| *: - Paid editing tags removed after review | |||
| *: - Content properly sourced | |||
| *: - Constructive engagement documented | |||
| *:The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Misplaced Pages's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions. | |||
| *:I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. ] (]) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. ] (]) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons ''still'' falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. ] (]) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Misplaced Pages licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious. | |||
| :::2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite: | |||
| ::: - Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels | |||
| ::: - Confirmation by administrators | |||
| ::: - Clear documentation of my limited representative role | |||
| ::: - Proper sourcing of all content | |||
| :::The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Misplaced Pages processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. ] (]) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? ] (]) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time: | |||
| :::::The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement. | |||
| :::::To spell it out yet again: | |||
| :::::- Not the creator | |||
| :::::- Not the copyright holder | |||
| :::::- Authorized for licensing verification only | |||
| :::::- Images officially verified | |||
| :::::- Reinstatement confirmed | |||
| :::::Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Misplaced Pages. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! ] (]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims. | |||
| :::::::The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. ] (]) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Stan1900}}, ''correct that false claim'' that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. ] (]) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. ] (]) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but ''only'' for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. ] (]) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Thank you, {{u|Stan1900}}. ] (]) 03:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory: | |||
| Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> | |||
| :Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander. | |||
| ] 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative. | |||
| :You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews). | |||
| :You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release). | |||
| :You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional. | |||
| :That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional. | |||
| :However, if we look beyond all that, the continual ] of multiple threads, the ] behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to ]. ] (]) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Misplaced Pages has in place for this. | |||
| ::Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access. | |||
| ::Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Misplaced Pages is for. | |||
| ::Your continued attempts to paint standard Misplaced Pages processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. ] (]) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Misplaced Pages's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process. | |||
| :::Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years? | |||
| :::I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. ] (]) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban. | |||
| ::::I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred. | |||
| ::::My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Misplaced Pages. All of my work on Misplaced Pages for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point. | |||
| ::::I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked. | |||
| ::::For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. ] (]) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, re: {{tq| want everyone to see contributions and the articles 've edited}}... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). ] (]) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|Axad12 }} {{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} | |||
| ::::::1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination. | |||
| ::::::2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed. | |||
| ::::::3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Misplaced Pages channels. This matter is resolved. | |||
| ::::::4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T: | |||
| ::::::- Using talk pages | |||
| ::::::- Providing reliable sources | |||
| ::::::- Following dispute resolution | |||
| ::::::- Getting official review of tags | |||
| ::::::- Verifying image licensing | |||
| ::::::- Addressing repetitious concerns transparently | |||
| ::::::5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions. | |||
| ::::::6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Misplaced Pages presence is, frankly, pathetic. | |||
| ::::::All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. ] (]) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please see ]. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. ] (]) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels: | |||
| ::::::::1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on) | |||
| ::::::::2. Image licensing - verified through VRT | |||
| ::::::::3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process | |||
| ::::::::I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence. | |||
| ::::::::Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. ] (]) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sorry, how have the issues in this thread {{tq|been officially resolved through proper channels}}? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet been {{tq|officially resolved}} by any definition of the term. ] (]) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review | |||
| ::::::::::The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification | |||
| ::::::::::The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved | |||
| ::::::::::These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Misplaced Pages channels. See: | |||
| ::::::::::- VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583 | |||
| ::::::::::- Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration | |||
| ::::::::::Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes. | |||
| ::::::::::If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. ] (]) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it {{tq|misleading}} that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading: | |||
| ::::::::::::1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct | |||
| ::::::::::::2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect: | |||
| ::::::::::::- See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583 | |||
| ::::::::::::- See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements | |||
| ::::::::::::3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Misplaced Pages through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. ] (]) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to ] that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. ] (]) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record: | |||
| ::::::::I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage: | |||
| ::::::::- Used talk pages consistently | |||
| ::::::::- Responded to concerns promptly | |||
| ::::::::- Had tags officially reviewed and removed | |||
| ::::::::- Had images verified through VRT | |||
| ::::::::- Resolved authorized agent status | |||
| ::::::::- Made improvements based on constructive feedback | |||
| ::::::::2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy. | |||
| ::::::::3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels. | |||
| ::::::::I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so. | |||
| ::::::::The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). ] (]) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s? | |||
| :::::::::The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them. | |||
| :::::::::Misplaced Pages's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker. | |||
| :::::::::The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved. | |||
| :::::::::Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of. | |||
| :::::::::Misplaced Pages is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. ] (]) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. ] (]) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence? | |||
| :::::::::::Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Misplaced Pages coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work. | |||
| :::::::::::At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>'''Support T-ban at least'''</s> the continued ] and ] per the above bludgeoning by said user. ] (]) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed: | |||
| ::1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING" | |||
| ::2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND" | |||
| ::3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning" | |||
| ::Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. ] (]) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to '''Support an indef''' it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. ] (]) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence? | |||
| ::::I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me. | |||
| ::::Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. ] (]) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. ] (]) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless of any ], the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to: | |||
| ::::* ] such basic site policies as ]; | |||
| ::::* ] wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid ''in any way''; | |||
| ::::* ] any sort of feedback on board, with ] only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after '''4''' long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages); | |||
| ::::* ] hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view; | |||
| ::::leads me to, unfortunately, also '''support an indef ban''', at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also ''properly'' responding to other editors' concerns, while ] to what they're actually saying. | |||
| ::::To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. ] (]) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts: | |||
| :::::1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution" | |||
| :::::This completely misrepresents what occurred: | |||
| :::::- The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes | |||
| :::::- They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity | |||
| :::::- When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately | |||
| :::::- The record clearly shows this timeline | |||
| :::::2. Re: "inability to take feedback" | |||
| :::::The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes: | |||
| :::::- Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly | |||
| :::::- Article refinements based on additional verified sources | |||
| :::::- Format changes adopted when specifically requested | |||
| :::::- Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements) | |||
| :::::3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS" | |||
| :::::- I fully understand and respect consensus processes | |||
| :::::- Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion | |||
| :::::- I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels | |||
| :::::4. Re: "hammering viewpoint" | |||
| :::::What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been: | |||
| :::::- Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.) | |||
| :::::- Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations | |||
| :::::- Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven | |||
| :::::- Protecting properly sourced content from removal | |||
| :::::- Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads | |||
| :::::5. Re: "not being collegial" | |||
| :::::The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while: | |||
| :::::- Following every proper procedure | |||
| :::::- Implementing requested changes when actually specified | |||
| :::::- Using appropriate Misplaced Pages venues | |||
| :::::- Facing repeated unfounded allegations | |||
| :::::Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. ] (]) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? ] (]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. ] ] 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Phil Bridger}} {{u|Schazjmd}} Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse. | |||
| :::After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters. | |||
| :::The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. ] (]) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? ]] 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support CBAN''' of this bludgeoning ]. They are a clear ]. ] (]) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages . ]] 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations… | |||
| *:Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time. | |||
| *:Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view. | |||
| *:Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here . | |||
| *:And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement . ] (]) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Gender-related arbitration issue? == | |||
| :Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. Accept it, or get banned. Sorry. ] 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Removed from editing (indef'd). - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :: Quote the relevant passage that says I'll be banned please! :-) ] 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Masquewand}} is removing "gender" from {{pagelinks|Sexual orientation}}. First {{diff||1264041220|1261563622|02:48, 20 Dec 24}} which I reverted then on {{diff||1264051379|1264041261|04:12, 20 Dec 24}}. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. ] (]) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : makes me think ] applies. ] (]) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :SPUI is one of several Wikipedians who takes the tack that "It ain't a consensus unless it agrees with ''me''!" ] 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The whole of that user talk page is a study in ]. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! ] 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also the only person ever blocked for successfully violating ] ;-) ] 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::Didn't Ed Poor get blocked for deleting AfD? ]|] 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Take note of comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? ] (]) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mgtow definition == | |||
| Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try . --] (]) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (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 == | |||
| I have a solution to this issue: Block anyone who . Block anyone who's ever named a highway article wrong. Block anyone who's ever gotten frustrated and made ] in the middle of a highway naming dispute. Block anyone who's part of the 59%. The reasoning? Anyone who's made mistakes in the past is likely to make mistakes again, and that constitutes disruption. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. --] - ] 12:44, 1 September 2006 (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) | |||
| Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right? | |||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| :As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. | |||
| :::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cquote|Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. ... everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are '''not binding'''. — ]}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." ] 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Its supporters are treating it as fully binding, and plan to move all the highway pages once the details are hammered out. --] (] - ]) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::SPUI: Perhaps if you (and to a lesser extent, others) had collegially worked with everyone else to reach a consensus prior to this, instead of having it have to go to ArbCom, it wouldn't have come to this. It certainly would have wasted '''far''' less time on everyone's part. But you and others did not and ArbCom acted. What I see here is disruptive wikilawyering on your part after the fact, trying to block implementation. You need to accept that this is how it's going to play out. | |||
| :You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner. | |||
| ::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories. | |||
| ::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved. | |||
| :::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens. | |||
| ::Note that one way to achieve consensus is to block or ban those who are disruptively interfering with the attempt to reach it, until only reasonable people remain. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are enormous. Yet, no less a personage than Jimbo himself has asked you to change your disruptive, contentious ways, remember? ''No one person'' is indispensible to this project and if the project has to get along without your positive contributions in order to also get along without your negative contributions, so be it. There are a number of admins who are prepared to block anyone who is contentiously and tendentiously disrupting this process. I suggest you internalise that and move on. ++]: ]/] 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP. | |||
| :::I agree emphatically with Lar here. This ''bloody stupid'' dispute keeps popping up on WP:AN, AN/I, RfC, and now RfArb. Pick one convention – ''any'' convention that's not patent nonsense will do – and get on with all your lives. (It seems that the ArbCom-imposed process has generated such a result. I haven't looked at the poll to see what that result is, but from previous exposure to this issue I know that both of the favoured alternatives were reasonable.) Please add me to the list of admins who are sick and tired of this, and who are likely to block any editors who are responsible for this ''utterly pointless'' fight returning to WP:AN or any of its subpages. There are lots of useful things to do on Misplaced Pages. Pick one of them and stop bothering the rest of us with this issue. ](]) 14:26, 1 September 2006 (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. | |||
| :::: I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Misplaced Pages. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend ''so much time'' worrying about something ''so trivial'' that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason. | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Misplaced Pages in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. ] 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I would have accepted a 59/41 had it gone the other way. We have a definite majority that while not quite 66% generally used for consensus, it is damn close. And it is definitely the clearest will ever expressed in the highway argument and probably the clearest there will ever be. There was nothing uncouth about the vote, it was performed fairly, there was discussion involved and a decision has been reached as arbcom demanded. This should put an end to it. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 18:35, 1 September 2006 (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) | |||
| I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. ] ] 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Friday, I find myself asking that same question regularly. I think Misplaced Pages would be more credible and attract better writers if we dropped our bad habit of coddling and enabling sociopathic behavior. You can't blame SPUI - he hasn't been sent the message that disruptive behavior is ''actually'' uncacceptable. At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:20, 1 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :I think the bottom line here is that some admin (not already involved) needs to be '''bold''', close the poll per Arbcom ruling that a plausible decision is better than none at all, and be prepared to back up the decision with blocks. SPUI will either accept the result or contest the page moves, in which case he should be blocked. ] 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the process currently in effect. The poll is closed and admins are weighing in. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Excessive range block == | |||
| :Benefit to the project. Disruptiveness and stubbornness aside, most of us are extremely reluctant to lose his expertise on highway topics. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read ]. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. ] (]) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue. | |||
| :: Most of us? Should we run a poll? I'm thoroughly fed up with this endless conflict over something so utterly trivial, all caused by SPUI refusing to accept that he could ever have to compromise about anything, that he has to work with others, and that he doesn't have unlimited licence to do whatever the hell he wants. I fully support ]'s block, and if SPUI persists in this sort of behaviour after the block expires, I'd support making it permanent. I see very little benefit to the project in keeping him around. --] (]) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Secondly, this should probably be at ], or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well with no apparent issue. – ] (]) (]) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. ] (]) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{xt|Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request.}} Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. ] (]) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one has any "rights" to edit this website. ] (]) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think. | |||
| :Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why {{U|Widr}} blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks and . ] (]) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. ] (]) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like ]. ] (]) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran ] 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --] (]) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran ] 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in the United States, not India. — ] (]) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I believe {{U|Usernamekiran}} was referring to their own experience <small>mentioned in their first comment</small> rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. ] (]) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment. | |||
| *::::Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. – ] (]) (]) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::There is, or perhaps was <small>the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur</small>, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j == | |||
| ===SPUI Blocked=== | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++]: ]/] 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
| This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed . | |||
| Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine. | |||
| :Why should he? We keep making it abundantly clear that he can do anyting he wants, and it will all be accepted. Would you change? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and . | |||
| :He won't. As you stated above, ''no one person is indispensible to this project.'' If that means SPUI must be blocked, even if temporairly, to gain some ground on this project and hopefully keep some editors from bailing ship, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I'm sick and tired of going on this merry-go-round of a chase to get SPUI to conform to policy, because it hasn't worked since day one. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{admin| Ashibaka}} reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++]: ]/] 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd support the next block being indefinite- I've no idea what his credentials are as a highway expert but it's blatantly obvious that he's been a very disruptive editor for a very long time. ] ] 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq == | |||
| No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. --] 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Content dispute. ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect. | |||
| https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978 | |||
| : While SPUI has contributed much to the highway article system at Misplaced Pages, other users can fill his shoes. The amount of people that we have lost as a result of this debate, SPUI's edit warring, and general mess should tell you there are obvious trade-offs for keeping him on here. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/ | |||
| https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population | |||
| https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/ | |||
| https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/ | |||
| https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years | |||
| https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hello, {{u|Freeman7373}}. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at ]. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The ] is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the ] which is also cited. ] (]) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below | |||
| ::https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/ | |||
| ::https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims | |||
| ::https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs | |||
| ::Shame on your reliable source ] (]) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Quora isn't reliable, and please be ]. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent == | |||
| ::I won't shed any tears over SPUI's self-inflicted travails. But, you know, he does have at least a small point. That naming convention poll was vague and confusingly constructed and garnered a weak majority - it should in no way be taken as license to run rough-shod over any remaining objections. But despite my reservations about the actual poll, SPUI has proven time and again to be a real PITA. ] ≠ ] 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. ] (]/]) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User|MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent}} has been warned by several users about their improper ] but has not changed their behavior.{{Diff2|1263492476}}{{Diff2|1264201007}} It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I second all of the above. I happen to largely agree with SPUI on the poll: it's confused as to its scope (started off as being on "US state routes", then wandered into Canada and US territories ''after'' the first round of voting), its process (is a non-consensus outcome on the first part binding on the options for the second part? are some states exceptions on the basis of having unique common names that contradict the part one majority, while other common names are precluded by it?), and its basic mandate (is it to determine the common name, or pick a naming convention that's able to override that principle? is there a consensus to accept a non-consensus? has arbcom mandated picking an NC, regardless of consensus? do the judging admins in fact determine if there's consensus?). But let's face it, SPUI has gotten away with murder in the past (industrial-scale incivility, rampant WP:POINT -- including nomination of deletion processes for deletion, signature-spamming campaigns against a certain Wikiproject, and doubtless much else I've blocked out of my mind), so it's hard to argue that he's being done a huge injustice if he's for the time being out of "community patience". ] 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like they . I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. ] (]) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The poll was more than vague and confusingly constructed... it was written almost entirely by SPUI's primary adversary in all this, that user's preferred format was listed first, when SPUI objected to some of the judging admins the requirement that they be accepted by all participants mysteriously vanished, one of the people supporting SPUI's proposal was badgered into withdrawing his vote by a mob over a minor point of protocol, et cetera. The poll has been atrocious. '''However''', a solution which is ''preferred'' by a significant majority, at least acceptable to most others, and strongly opposed by only a handful '''is''' a consensus... and that appears to be the case here. I think it could have been a much stronger decision if '''either''' side had been a bit more willing to work towards overcoming the concerns of the other, but as it stands it seems a disputed consensus is the best we are likely to get. --] 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 == | |||
| :::: So what would you have proposed, moving Principle II to the top? Oh wait, that would seem like ''favouritism'' towards that principle and then we would all be complaining about that, right? Give me a break, I can't even believe you are complaining about the ''order''. People were given '''clear instructions''' in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. If you had such objections to it at first, you should have voiced it ''then'', and not now. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :::::''People were given '''clear instructions''' in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for.'' I suppose "clear instructions" are a matter of perspective. I've been around a lot of straw polls and this ranks near the bottom in terms of clarity. ] ≠ ] 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | result = the /64 for one week. ] (]/]) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Seicer, I did not "object ''then''" as you say because I wasn't aware of the problems. The poll specifically asked for admins who were '''not''' involved in the highway debate. I wasn't. And hence I did not know who the major players were, what positions they supported, et cetera. After having read the poll discussion, past discussions, the ArbCom case, various Wikiproject debates on the issue, past policy proposals, et cetera in order to make an informed decision I am now sadly far more familiar with the issues and participants than I would like to be. :] As to the rest of your intemperate rant... it is behaviour like that which led to this being a debacle rather than a reasoned discussion. Though one of the more minor problems here, order of options is ''routinely'' considered for possible bias in professional polling and, while something must go first, it would have been better if the one which did hadn't been the one preferred by the person who designed the poll. For instance, I doubt many people would have objected to listing 'Principle III' first... if it had been listed at all initially. --] 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{userlinks|2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329}} has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. ] • ] • ] 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note:''' The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>|]|]✶ 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: So, if Principle II would have been listed first, would it not be out of line to say that it was biased towards Principle II and not Principle I or III because of order? There is no easy way to go about this, but since it is ''clearly'' defined in the table of contents, all one has to do is read and find out. That's not being "intemperate", thats being reasonable. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems to be purely an ] issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] got their first, hence he put Principle I first. Did you look at the diffs below? --'''] (] - ]) ''' 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>|]|]✶ 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| ::::Okay. I constructed that poll to be as fair as possible. The reason Principle I was listed first was that they were the first ones to see the poll (check the history if you doubt me.) The person who was "badgered" into changing their vote left comments next to their vote, and when a judging admin removed it, he reverted many times. Check the discussion if you don't believe me. Judging admin problems? We were reluctant to remove any admin since we were originally short, and the objections seemed to not be well-supported. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All true, but somewhat missing the point. I wasn't saying that anyone 'set out' to bias the poll, but that there were definite problems with the way it was done. As someone heavily involved in the dispute you really shouldn't have been the one setting up the poll... and rather than stepping back you have subsequently made comments about you deciding how it should be run since you ''did'' set it up. Yes, getting enough admins is a reasonable argument... but can you ''really'' look at the fact that '''you''' were the one waiving the requirement that admins be accepted by participants after '''SPUI''' objected to some of them and say that looked 'fair'? You, of all people, getting to say that SPUI's objections "seemed not to be well-supported" and 'changing the rules' after the fact to ignore them? '''Then''' insisting 'we must follow the rules' (which you wrote) when a supporter of the other position wanted to include a one line comment with their vote? There's just an inherent conflict of interest which ought to have been avoided because no matter ''how'' fair you tried to be you're the wrong person with the wrong history on this issue. Until I read up on the background I had assumed you were an uninvolved party... because that's the only sort of person who should have had so much control over the process. But, water under the bridge. We are where we are... and I think we can construe a weak consensus from the result. Just don't say that this was 'the best that could be hoped for' or that SPUI and others who share his viewpoint (Polaron, Rory096, et cetera) have no grounds for complaint on the way it was handled. Because they do... and the 'we do not ''have'' to work towards consensus, we have a majority' attitude ''openly stated'' by some '''really''' isn't helping matters. We should all ALWAYS be trying to develop a true consensus. Of course, this is not to say that there weren't (or aren't still) problems on the other side as well. --] 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Specifically, we had developed a consensus against including comments when voting. You seem to be missing that point. Also, if you examine the discussion closely, '''I was not involved in that at all.''' I just logged on to Misplaced Pages one day and found out that all of that happened. I didn't revert any comments or anything. With the judging admins, I was not sure what to do at that point. Noone else seemed to agree with SPUI or have any objections, so I let it slide. And as to my creating the poll in the first place, '''noone was doing crap about the issue.''' We had users like ] leaving over the indecisiveness. So I figured that we needed to do something. Noone else was. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, you have to admit that it was better than what was going on. SPUI's alternative was mass page-move warring, using {{tl|cleanup-title}}, etc. This way actually got something done. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Something being better than move-warring doesn't mean much. How about we come to a decision that everyone can actually agree on. Discussing, rather than banning comments and just voting then saying we have a consensus, would be a great alternative to this debacle. --] 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Try discussing with someone who doesn't believe in compromise. Try discussing someone who doesn't believe that there are alternatives. Try discussing with someone who believes that he is right and everyone else should just shut the hell up and listen to him. I'm sorry, we tried discussion, and the result led to animosity on both sides. I'm not belittling your alternative; it's just that there is this harsh reality that cordial discussion won't work well, if it will ever exist in this debate. --] 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You can't say that's not true of both sides. When SPUI refuses to give in to the non-parentheses side, they don't make counterarguments to his arguments, they just call a vote, and when SPUI complains that the vote isn't valid, they just push to have him banned. Both sides should sit down and discuss the merits of their sides, and whether their arguments do make sense and are better than the other side's. --] 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We kindly asked him many times to stop so we could discuss. We started a mediation case. Then an RFC. Then ArbCom. We gave him many chances. You can read about my and others' attempts ]. But he was not willing to compromise, saying "I'm right." --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So now, ArbCom has succeeded in making him stop move-warring, and he agrees to discuss it. Why won't you discuss it with him? You ask him to "Please stop now"<sup>]]</sup> when he finally makes an attempt to understand your position, rather than explaining it to him and hopefully convincing him you're right. It just doesn't make sense to me. --] 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Because we discussed it ''ad nauseum'' for months upon end. Continuing to do so is beyond my sanity. And, pardon my lack of good faith (for good reason), he is most likely only trying to start another "discussion" about the decided-upon principle. --] 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, then why don't you just link him to where it was explained ''why'' this decision was reached, instead of just giving links to ''how''? Of course he's trying to start a discussion; just because the designated time period for discussing the method of disambiguating is over doesn't mean discussion is banned, he still wants to know the reasoning behind the other method so he can better cope with its being used. --] 00:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I ''did''. Instead of reading it superficially, maybe try reading the linked articles I provided more thoroughly. And no, discussion is not banned, but repeating the same discussion ''ad infinitum'' is pointless. --] 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::It's not the same discussion. The difference is that this time SPUI is willing to listen. --] 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Well, if he finally wants to discuss, the answer to his question is surely within the links I gave him. --] 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : The most obvious fact here is that very few Wikipedians really give a toss about parentheses or roads, we just want an end to this ridiculous edit warring and the ] does too and it has provided us with the means to resolve the problem. SPUI himself is under ], as are all other parties to the ], and as a contribution to resolving the problem '''I hereby ban ''all'' of those involved from editing or moving those articles ''until we have all agreed on a policy '''''. What, you say that's a bridge too far? Too bad. That is ''precisely'' what the arbitration committee said in the Highways case. The ''only'' reason these people are arguing now is that they think it's more important for their argument to continue than it is to permit Misplaced Pages to reach a conclusive decision on an utterly trivial issue. Let's tell them that it's time to recognise that "I am" is not the rule on Misplaced Pages. Let's tell them to get back to work or fuck off.. --] 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree. --] 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Editing any highway article? Or just those controversial edits? --'''] | |||
| ::{{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 == | |||
| (] - ]) ''' 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::For now, just say all. This needs to end, now. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:38, 2 September 2006 (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 ] == | |||
| :::It may not be ideal, but I'll support this and do it myself out of the community spirit. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:47, 2 September 2006 (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. | |||
| ::::I suppose we need to alert people somehow? How far does this extend? --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 | |||
| ::: That goes too far. My highway edits are constructive and do not involve mass page renames, adding unwarranted tags, or bickering endlessly on how a highway should be named. To ban any highway edits would involve a great deal of work on your part, to which is not justified nor approperiate. Let's get off the emotion bandwagon and let's talk facts: | |||
| ::: *Only one or two users in the ''entire highway project'' are involved in the mass page renames and adding unwarranted tags. Namely ]. | |||
| ::: *Only two or three users are continuously complaining about the entire system. To them, if it is not done in their way, its not to be done at all. After the mass page renames and mass tagging of articles (e.g. such as Ohio state highways), SPUI was asked to stop and discuss. After that failed, a mediation case was started. And then RFC, and now ArbCom. Per what ] noted. | |||
| ::: To be clear, let's keep a watch out on the articles, not ban constructive editors from doing constructive edits. I have yet to do anything wrong in this case, therefore I should not be punished for waging a vote in a legitimate process judged by several admins. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think what Tony Sidaway meant were the article renamings. --] 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy | |||
| ::::: Yes, thanks. My profuse apologies to all involved. I overstepped the remit by saying "editing" and did not intend to limit or hamper normal editing. It was only moving, renaming that I intended to limit, and I tried rhetorically to point out that my supposed order was in fact an enforcement of the status quo. I fucked up hugely. I apologise, again, to all involved. --] 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again | |||
| ===''Somebody's'' not happy=== | |||
| --'''] (] - ]) ''' 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And this: . --] 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| That's ], who made near identical comments earlier about the same topic. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] 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) | |||
| :We know that. Hence the sarcasm. --] 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks == | |||
| :: Add unsigned comment or delete comment until he can sign it so it doesn't appear to be "anonymous"? ] <small>(]) (])</small> 00:22, 3 September 2006 (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? | |||
| :::What comment? --] 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Nevermind. I had too many windows open and got confused in the page histories for various pages. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| .I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===It continues=== | |||
| See later post below. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following: | |||
| == The Rockets == | |||
| ::*] 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) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Comments by Locke Cole == | |||
| I don't know all the rules or procedures of Misplaced Pages, for that I apologize. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| However I have attempted to edit the page for "The Rockets" with some but not total satisfaction. | |||
| | result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| One of the definitions you have posted reads as follows: | |||
| }} | |||
| '''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}} | |||
| "Crazy Horse (band) — An American rock and roll band which was originally named "The Rockets". | |||
| 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) | |||
| In fact the Crazy Horse band was only one of at least two bands that have used the name the rockets | |||
| ::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) | |||
| The Detroit band mentioned was probably more well known as "The Rockets" than The crazy horse band was. | |||
| :::{{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) | |||
| While Crazy Horse is certainly notable, They used that name for a year or so, The Detroit Rockets used the name | |||
| ::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| for 10+ years. and can still be heard frequently on Detroit FM stations. | |||
| *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) | |||
| ::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The second, as one of your own admins pointed out, was a well known Band from Detroit. | |||
| They put out 6 albums total, had several songs that charted and were formed by two of the former members of the "Detroit Wheels" | |||
| Their singer sang for a period with Ted Nugent. | |||
| They were the opening act for major bands of the period such as Kiss, ZZ Top, amungst many others. | |||
| They had some but primarily local Detroit sucess with such hits as "Turn Up The Radio", "OH Well", "Takin it back" and others. | |||
| They deserve more than a "See also, Detroit Wheels" | |||
| I would be happy to attempt to do them better justice but I'm not sure I would be the best person to do so given my inexperience of WIKI and all the ins and outs, formatting ect. | |||
| I will probably never find a reply so it may be better to send replies to crider.john@comcast.net | |||
| 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) | |||
| Thanks | |||
| :It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| See the following links: | |||
| :::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) | |||
| == POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes == | |||
| http://www.johnny-bee.com/ | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Street/2818/ | |||
| 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) | |||
| http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=3550 | |||
| :Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| http://madrabbit.net/rockets/ | |||
| ::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Promotional content about Elvenking (band) == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| }} | |||
| Known vandal pattern of ] and ]. | |||
| I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. | |||
| May need to be semi-protected as ] was last time this vandal struck.--] 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :Also vandalism of archived AFD similar to vandalism pattern on ]. Would suggest sprotect of this as well.--] 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| =={{user|Billsonator}}== | |||
| :*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) | |||
| This user keeps trying to recreate ], which was speedied twice (G3 and G4). He's removing speedy tags and posting copyvio images on ], and has an extensive history of vandalism and trying to turn various ] articles into discussion forums. He also has a history of posting linkspam in these articles. Probably needs a block, since he's been ignoring warnings for a while now. I would have reported him to AIV, but his vandalism is spread out over a period of several months. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 00:25, 4 September 2006 (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 ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==] and ]== | |||
| <small>Moved from ]--] 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :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. | |||
| * {{vandal|Duke53}} I made and honest mistake while cutting and pasting one of his comments in a discussion page (just so i could edit it and reply in similar manner) and forgot to remove his signature. He responded in a fury about someone posting under his name, and then i saw what happened, and immediately corrected the problem, said it was a mistake, and apologized. Well, because i guess of our edit warring before hand, he seized the opportunity and threatened to report me for impersonating him, and has been vandalizing my talk page with threats ever since. This guy is out of control. ] 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. | |||
| ::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.'' | |||
| ::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. | |||
| ::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.'' | |||
| ::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. | |||
| ::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album | |||
| :::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ | |||
| :::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ] ] 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...}} === | |||
| :* {{vandal|2nd Piston Honda}} After he posted to a talk page he deleted my posts commenting on his behavior. He then attacked me personally, calling me '<b>douche</b>','<b> asshole</b>' and '<b>ass</b>' at various times. I put up warnings at his user talk page (as per Misplaced Pages policy) which he promptly deleted; while at his talk page I noticed another editor had previously admonished him for deleting material elsewhere. | |||
| ::: A brand new administrator took up this case and 'compromised' by deleting everything. He said that 2nd Piston Honda had 'made 2 mistakes' but (apparently) 'no harm, no foul'. | |||
| Everything he says that I did, he did. He must be taught that he has no right to be impersonating other editors and that it isn't his right to delete materials, which he now has a history of doing. I feel that he should be suspended for a while to think about his actions at Misplaced Pages. Thank You"] | ]" 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. | |||
| Hi everyone, I was the administrator involved. Here's a link to the talk pages of both and before I blanked their warning warring. | |||
| 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 | |||
| My take of the situation: 2nd Piston Honda made a mistake and forgets to remove Duke53's signature after cutting and pasting on ] for which he apologises for at . Duke53 refuses to accept Honda's apology and takes further offense when Honda tries to return the thread back on topic and begins "]" accusing Honda of impersonation, talk page vandalism and starts issuing warnings on Honda's talk page. Honda loses his cool and calls Duke53 an "asshole" for refusing his apology. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Both users then proceed to war over issuing warnings to each other for vandalising each other's talk pages and for removing each other's warnings from their respective talk pages. Honda then makes the above report to ] requesting that Duke53 be blocked. I refuse to block either of them citing that they were both "making mountains out of molehills." In attempt to de-escalate the situation, I offer both of them the chance to remove all the warnings that they've given to each other over this whole incident so that they can both walk away like nothing ever happened. ] (] • ]) recommends that both users accept my compromise. Neither takes the opportunity to do so, so I intervene and remove all warnings issued related to this conflict stating that it was over and signalling that I was to take no disciplinary action against either. Honda agrees, but Duke53 disagreed with my handling of the situation and now we are here. What an "eventful" first day as an administrator I have to say. *sigh* -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
| :::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bunch of racist IPs/account == | |||
| : You got part of it right, but <i><b>I never removed a single thing he wrote on my talk page</b></i>. The truth about that puts some things into a different light, don't you think? Little details about the truth matter to some of us. "] | ]" 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| * {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}} | |||
| * {{ip|112.202.57.150}} | |||
| * {{ip|186.154.62.233}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : p.s. Ever consider the fact that the reason that "Honda agrees" is that he's the one who made the personal attacks and broke Misplaced Pages policies at will? Just a thought. "] | ]" 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Urgent need for page protection on BLP == | |||
| :I commend Netsnipe for a careful investigation and a cool-headed mediation (especially in the face of sniping criticism from one of the parties). Good job for a first day. — ] (]) 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Duke53, you've said a few times that 2nd Piston Honda has never apologized - is it possible that you missed the apology he made in the ] of ? If so, that would explain your adamant pursual of the topic on the GWB talk page, which Honda in turn interpreted as belligerence, and which then spun the situation out of control. I think Netsnipe has done a fine job here, and was right on the money when he said "mountains out of molehills." Just my two cents. --]]]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| This is getting quite ridiculous. Duke53 needs to read up on ] and ] and ], especially for the comment that Netsnipe has much to learn about being an admin and "dropped the ball" on this issue, apparently for not punishing Honda to his liking. Yes, very nice, insulting the person who's trying to mediate the conflict in the first place. ], Duke53. ] 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I will answer Peruvianllama and Hbdragon88 both in this paragraph. The apology for calling me a <b>'douche'</b>, an <b>'asshole'</b> and an <b>'ass'</b> is still forthcoming. I believe that those names could be considered a personal attack under Misplaced Pages policy. Deleting items from a talk page is also against Misplaced Pages policy; he did it repeatedly. I followed Misplaced Pages policy. As for insulting the administrator, well, it's not my fault that he's new at it. I'm not about to put a 'class' of people here on a pedestal, simply because they have a title. If that administrator thinks he did a good job then he's got low expectations of how Misplaced Pages should be administered... <b>ignoring numerous instances of Misplaced Pages policy being broken is not good administrating, no matter what your friends may tell you.</b> If I were to be banned I would hope it is for breaking policy, not for telling the truth about a situation that arises (or for someone's 'interpretation' of my words). "] | ]" 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. I am civil when treated civilly; after that, all bets are off. | |||
| ::Nowhere on ] does it say you can be uncivil to others if they are uncivil with you first. ] 06:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't matter what it says about the "other party". The guideline is about ''every user'', and specifically it says incivility is: Rudeness (dragging this out), Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (accusations against Netsnipe to learn how to administrate), Personal attacks ("imposter" and other terms), and calling for bans or blocks (2nd Honda, repeatedly). ] 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts | |||
| :: Deleting items from a Talk Page is not always strictly against Misplaced Pages policy. The first time Honda deleted items, it was to keep the discussion moving as s/he thought the issue had been resolved. The subsequent times were (I presume) because Honda interpreted your persistence on the matter as a sign of belligerence. Honda shouldn't have called you names - that was out of line, and there are channels of dispute resolution that can be followed if you still feel slighted. For your part however, the better strategy would have been to try communicating with Honda instead of repeatedly posting templated warnings on her/his talk page. The warnings are there to standardize our (the Community's) message to those new to Misplaced Pages, or to those who don't yet understand the basic policies. Once you grab their attention with the warnings, it's almost always better to then engage the other party in more dynamic discourse to resolve the issue if there's been a misunderstanding. You both handled things poorly near the end by calling every edit made by the other party "vandalism", and responding only with template warnings and alerts to ]. Initially, it was you that forced the issue with your persistent posts; later, it was Honda that stepped over the line with the foul language. They might not have been equal transgressions, but I agree with Netsnipe that for now, there isn't much more to be gained from pursuing the matter. If you'd like formal mediation, I think you know where to go, but if you'd like something more informal, if there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. Cheers. --]]]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| , , . | |||
| This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today. | |||
| ] certainly does not promote a positive wiki-environment. -- ''']''' 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| Oh, well, sauce for the goose and all that. It's easy to talk about all these ideals & policies, but here is proof that those ideals & policies can be ignored to fit one guy's version of that individual situation. I really, really don't appreciate getting lied to, and that has happened a few times in this incident. ] 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You are "'']''". There is nothing more you can say or do to get ] blocked. What happened has happened and my decision has now been reviewed by other administrators as you've requested. So far, I haven't received any ] over my handling of this incident by anybody else. You've been so caught up in your own self-righteousness that you haven't even realised that it could have easily gone the other way and you could have been blocked instead if I hadn't exercised self-restraint and accepted Honda's ] report at his word. Instead, I tried mediation and neither of you got blocked as a result. By wasting more of our time here with you incessant complaining you are now entering ] territory. '''Move on''' and get back to writing an encyclopedia. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again == | |||
| :: I would liked to have heard it from those 'other' administrators' myself; not that I don't believe you, but .... Yeah, I was deathly afraid of getting blocked for <i>following </i> Misplaced Pages policies. Move on, and start learning how to administrate. "] | ]" 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:NoahBWill2002 == | |||
| ::: ...wow. Just, wow. ] 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}} | |||
| It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br> | |||
| (As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br> | |||
| I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Vandal encounter == | |||
| ::::Congratulations, Netsnipe, on your sensitive handling of this. --] 07:38, 4 September 2006 (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. | |||
| IMO, the matter has been handled very effectively by Netsnipe. ] 08:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| "I really don't care who gets angry" . I think this is a rather alarming comment. ] 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello! == | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| You all probally know me form Wikinews. Well we have a problem there. It has been confirmed, via checkuser, that ] shares the same ip adress as ]. I just wanted to share this with you so you can figure out where to go from there. ] 01:44, 4 September 2006 (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 == | |||
| :What is the IP? <font color="blue">]</font> ]/] 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::216.164.203.90 ] 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{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. | |||
| Hmm.. I seem to remember a similar incident a few days ago where a troll came on WP:AN or WP:AN/I and claimed RadioKirk was vandalizing on another wiki. Turns out he wasn't. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Disregard that, it seems as if the account was created to impersonate RadioKirk, was discovered and then transfered over, thats why the ip's matched. I still have my resrvations though :) ] 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::]'s blocked. Exactly what I thought.. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See ] and ]; this is the same person who has repeatedly impersonated me and now is trying to claim I'm somehow behind the whole thing. I've indef-blocked ] as yet another sock of ]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, by the way, there is no ]. Big surprise, eh? ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Per continued harassment by this user and the decided lack of valuable edits (even most of the seeming good edits are interrelated), I have blocked 216.164.203.0/24 for 6 months. Review is appreciated. Please. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : <sarcasm> The only problem I see is that you commented and replied to ''yourself'' three times above </sarcasm> :) No problems otherwise. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 02:23, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::LOL okay, remove indent ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:26, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :::Much better :) — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with talking to yourself? ] 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't see a problem with that. ] 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's what I thought. ] 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: lol, sure... nothing wrong here. :) — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Further, please see this ] and the oh-my-God-I'm-stunned-NOT! revelation that my block of ] affected ] (see above) and ] (see my talk page history and the users' contribs). The sock farm continues... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :yea, that ''was'' shocking *sigh* Well, at least if he creates any sockpuppets, this IP range (static?) will be blocked from editing. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* indeed. I'm trying to maintain a sense of humor through all this but, you know, sometimes a fucktard will always be a fucktard and a little boy will always be a little boy. The trick is to keep laughing at the pathos that is this prime example of herd-thinning, lest it think it's "winning" somehow... ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Old TI-89? I was under the impression that he was a good faith contributor. I encountered him last night on vandalism patrol, and I contacted him on his talk to congratulate him on his vandal reverting efforts and ask him about his username. He seemed a pretty civil user. I think the only strike against him is that he has a similar sig as RadioKirk. Just my 2¢. ]]] ] 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And the fact he was picked up as collateral damage after a block RadioKirk gave out to a recurring vandal, nope no other strikes against him :) — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 04:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This vandal has a history of appearing to be a good-faith contributor and then "turning"; I fully intended to ] until the "coincidences" became too much to ignore. The fact that ] and ] "share" an IP (all IPs in this case return to RCN Corporation and resolve to .atw-ubr1.atw.pa.cable.rcn.com), and that all "editors" in this case share certain idiosyncrasies which I would ask others to ], demonstrate a commonality that is beyond question. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| Update: despite the active <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock}} request on his talk page, ] wants known, including the call into question of my competence (invoking the incorrect block of ] , which was a specific block, not a user caught in an IP block designed to stop in-progress trolling, as in this case). This vandal has attempted several different paths toward what he hopes is my desysopping: impersonating me and asking to be desysopped, impersonating me and vandalizing other Wikis, reporting "me" here, self-identifying as ] to affect that user (the vandal since registered ]—I blocked under ]), and generally calling my abilities into question. Note also that ] of someone else is "goeing to look at this, besides this RadioKirk, who blocked me for no reason in the first place" in identical language to other such requests by other established socks, and as if he's never heard of me before despite copying my signature and monobook.js file. If indeed this user is '''not''' yet another reincarnation of this excessive vandal/troll, then he sure seems to be going to a lot of trouble to look/sound like it... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 15:18, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :Indeed, we were contacted on freenode, in #wikipedia, by ], who claims that he has nothing to do with ]. After checking the vandal's past contribs, I really don't know what to do with this. If I had to suggest, I would say to go ahead and unblock the user, then keep a careful eye on them. It's really the only thing we can do right now, seeing as PVJ has a history of acting civil, then turning around to vandalize. ] 15:31, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::I've just been advised that there's a ] on the Polish Wiki; registered 25 August if "sie" is the abbreviation of "sierpnia", is the user's only contribution as I type this. I have no clue at this point if there's a relationship to these goings-on. Meantime, I will unblock ] as a show of good faith, which has been extremely difficult under these circumstances. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh this is nice, thank you! I was pretty disapointed in this incident, and I HOPE it won't happen again. I would like to thank shadow1 for helping me out. Feel free to keep a close eye on me, you can be assured I seek no trouble. <tt style="color:#161;">Old TI-89<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 15:48, 4 September 2006 (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) | ||
| ::::::That's what it's supposed to do. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==TPA for 83.106.86.95== | |||
| Be advised of Essjay's comments regarding this IP address at ]. ] 16:23, 4 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :This refers to 216.164.203.90, the IP orginally mentioned in this section. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Maru bot edit == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Can you please help? == | |||
| Hey there. It seems that {{user2|Marudubshinki}} is running a bot through his main user account yet again. He currently has an open ] for just this sort of behavior. Do we need to warn him/block him? I don't claim to be the leading expert on bots at the moment, but this certainly does not seem proper. ]]] 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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 == | |||
| :No judgement on Maru's overall actions, but offhand this looks like just software-aided human editting, fixing links to disambiguation pages (a common task). See a few seconds after your diff: , the work being done in the last batch of edits almost certainly was done with human judgement. --] 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| ::Huh... Okay, I didn't see that one, the ones I looked at all looked the same to me. Still seems like a pretty poor time to be running ''any'' kind of "robot" edits through the main account, when it's part of the subject of ''his open RFAR''. ]]] 06:07, 4 September 2006 (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. | |||
| :::Some of these changes are occurring as fast as 10 per minute. Is this ''really'' a human-assisted bot? I would certainly add this to the evidence page in the arbitration case. ] 06:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| ::::Nah, glancing at about 10 of them, they all made the correct decision, and this is the kind of stuff an AI would not be able to do (making decisions based purely on context). So I think it's reasonable that it was just human-assisted. I've heard people on IRC claim speeds about that fast with the python disambiguation solver. Most edits do seem to have been at a more reasonable 3-5/minute pace. --] 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| == AIV backlog == | |||
| #* 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:''' | |||
| Currently almost an hour's backlog. ]]] ] 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| : Looks like it's mostly cleared up at the moment. --]]]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| == Masssiveego has posted his RfA and I have blocked him for it == | |||
| # 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. | |||
| Hello. I have blocked Masssiveego for his antics on ] which seems like a clear attempt to draw fire from people bitter with his own antics on RfA, with a minimalist nomination and tongue-in-cheek answers to the questions. He seems to have induced a bite from Pschemp at least. This lasts for a week. I previously did this for ] for trolling his own RfA. Please review and feel free to protest on my talk page. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources == | |||
| Sounds about right. --] 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Good call -- ]<small>]</small> 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see any issues with this block. Pure ]. Can we close the RfA? (Or does it need to be a 'crat?) ] <sup>]</sup> 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I was thinking of blocking him myself, so obviously I endorse the block. It's rather obvious that he's trolling for attention with all this RfA stuff... let's just not feed him and move on. --] 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| RFA has been closed. Support block. – ]] 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hey should I close it then? It's already ]balling with opposes and he is blocked after all. - ] 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) - shit - 4 edit conflicts later its been done :S | |||
| :::::Sheesh, if you use the shortcut at least shorten the verb to ]ing. I want snow! :P – ]] 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I added an extra day to the block for and . ] <small>]</small> 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Exhausting community patience?=== | |||
| Once again, it's time to bring this up. He's coming close to exhausting the community's patience, in my view. Thoughts? – ]] 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not yet. I would not have blocked him at all for starting the RfA. In fact i think SNOWing this RfA was a bad idea. Rather I would have let it run the full 7 days. Having 100+ opposes might have finally gotten through to this editor that he needs to reconsider his approach. But with the RfA snowed, he's got ammo to say we aren't treating him right, etc. ++]: ]/] 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps, but there just isn't a reason to let trolls stay. – ]] 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is this user a flat out troll? Sure, close the book right away... Or, is he rescuable? if rescuable is it worth the effort? that's how I evaluate the question of whether community patience is exhausted. I don't think ME is a flat out troll. His contributions are light so not a LOT of effort is justified but I'm not convinced he is not rescuable. Contrast with Tobias, next thread. CLEARLY not a troll, has a big contribution record, therefore worth a fair bit of effort, but I'm starting to think... not rescuable. Make sense? ++]: ]/] 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Would we simply be gratifying him by letting the RfA run? ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hard to say. I'm not too sussed either way but I did want to throw out that on balance, gratified or not, this is one time that SNOW isn't the right thing to do. In my view anyway. ++]: ]/] 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think closing it was the right thing to do to avoid disruption. Blocking him... I don't know whether he's a good faith user or not, and I suspect probably not, but I'm generally upset by the level of blocking going on in Misplaced Pages at the moment. ] 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the Masssiveego's RFA voting is a problem and unhelpful, but I think imposing blocks for it is a rather drastic measure. A much better "penalty" would be for the RFA closing bureaucrats to systematically disregard his votes. Regarding the RFA, I agree with Lar that I would not have blocked him for that either, and that a hundred "oppose"s on what is in effect an editor peer review might convey the message far more clearly than a block ever will. ] ] 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Lar and Sjakkalle. ] 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Users are allowed to use whatever criteria they like in RfAs. His are high and somewhat arbitrary, but that's his perogative. He feels that there are problems with some admins and thus that the process should be more strict/changed. He has a right to that opinion and should not be persecuted for it. Obviously his RFA self-nom wasn't meant to be a serious attempt, but I also don't see where it caused any significant disruption justifying a block. --] 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*It was obvious trolling. I think it's really not good as a community if we just let people do that. I really don't think I'd mind if someone opposed every RfA, at least I wouldn't want to block them for it, if I felt they were doing it in good faith. With his comments... it just seems like he's clammoring for attention most of the time. As a community we need to be aware of situations like that, and stop them. --] 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*(edit conflict) He hasn't been opposing RfAs on the basis that he thinks the candiates will be bad admins, he's been opposing them to annoy people. The whole "Masssiveego is allowed to vote using his own critera" is what has allowed him to continue trolling for so long. -- ] 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :**The above look like assumptions of bad faith. It seems clear to me that Massiveego votes the way he does because he legitimately believes there are problems with admins and the process for appointing them. He has repeatedly said that is the case. These claims that he is 'lying' seem wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the history IMO. --] 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :***It's bad to assume bad faith, but that absolutely does not mean that I can't conclude bad faith, and this is a situation where I'll do it. This defense of an obvious troll is kind of sad. Let's go work on writing the encyclopedia. --] 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*** I thought he was acting in good faith as well until this latest RfA. CBD have you read his statement and answers? Given how many of his edits are to the RfA pages he would know that suich an RfA would merit automatic opposes no matter who it was from and he himself has opposed before per people saying the answers to the questions are too short. ] is not a suicide pact. ] 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :****Let's talk about AGF. Blnguyen blocked Massiveego, for a week, for posting that RFA. Blnguyen also '''told''' him to post that RFA. Can I really be the only person who has a problem with that? If it were such a terrible thing to do then the same people damning him here should not have been telling him to do it. --] 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :***Masssive has also shown ] and ] that he considers RfA a joke (I realise those RfA's are from a while ago, though). -- ] 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*** I find this recent thing of many editors who should know better interpreting "Assume good faith" to mean "turn off all of your critical facilities and never act against people who are acting in bad faith" to be a somewhat disturbing trend. ] 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :****Thanks for the needless insult. Personally, I find the inability of many admins to behave in a remotely civil fashion a "somewhat disturbing trend". --] 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Reblocked=== | |||
| Okay, I reblocked him. If you look at his RfA (where someone tells people not to encourage him, then he replies flippantly "Please vote, your opinion counts!" this is just classic "Pay attention to my trolling!" stuff. Then after his comments on his talk page after the block... I mean come on, this guy is clearly playing us for attention and shows no sign of stopping, and the block was widely endorsed. Let's not keep feeding him. --] 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems like an improper block and wheel warring to me. The user has been saying that he was going to run for RFA (following suggestions that he do so) and preparing the form for about a week. Nothing surprising here. Nobody told him 'no do not do that'... nor should they have. Someone should not be banned from submitting an RfA just because they often vote against other users. --] 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, but if the RfA is obvious trolling... it's not good that we sit around and give him so much attention, it's exactly what he wants. --] 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This is a good block. He's not being banned for "submitting an RFA." He's being blocked for trolling. ] 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Semantic flim-flammery. If this was such a heinous thing then someone should have said so when he announced, repeatedly, that he was going to do it. Not waited until it happened and then blocked him for doing what others had encouraged him to do. --] 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think the people on ] and whatnot may have assumed his RfA was going to be a serious attempt at adminship, rather than the attempt to troll which it turned out to be. -- ] 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(after edit conflicts, reply to CBD) Uh, I didn't know he was talking about doing it, so the accusation that I waited until it happened is just untrue. I don't see every edit on Misplaced Pages... I can only respond to what I do see, when I see it. If someone does something bad, the fact that they quietly talked about it somewhere a week ago and no one objected is absolutely not a "get out of jail free" card. That's just not how things operate. --] 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::He didn't 'quietly talk about it'. He said it several times and was encouraged to do it. See ]. While you were (as you say) unaware of it note that the person who originally blocked him was not... because they told him to do it. And then blocked him for doing so. Indeed, ''both'' prior blockers, Blnguyen and CanadianCaesar, told him to put up an RFA. --] 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The issue here is not that Masssive put up an RfA. Rather, the issue is that the RfA he ''did'' put up was a joke RfA attempting to annoy people. Nobody would have blocked him if his RfA had been a serious attempt at adminship. -- ] 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Agree with Steel - your description is semantic flim-flammery. The relevant metaphor would be if someone asked you "Can I go to the bathroom?" and you said "Sure!" and they yanked down their pants and went on the floor. ] 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Ok, then tell me... does '''anyone''' seriously claim that there was ever '''any''' possibility of a 'Massiveego RfA' PASSING? Anyone? No? Does anyone think that he didn't ''know'' that? I'm sorry, but the 'oh it was bad because it was not a serious attempt to get adminship' excuse doesn't wash. Everyone knew when they encouraged him to do it that it wasn't going to be a 'serious attempt to get adminship'... because that was completely impossible. Anyone who ''didn't'' know what his RfA was going to be like when they encouraged him to do it must have been completely ignoring their critical thinking faculties... because it was obvious. --] 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Now ''who'', exactly, isn't assuming good faith? In my time at Misplaced Pages, I have seen many RfA's brought by people whom, six months previously, you would have said had no chance at passing (off the very top of my head, Aaron Brenneman, who was blocked and publically castigated for vandalism but whom through hard work redeemed himself in the eyes of the community). The only person responsible for the contents of Masssiveego's RFA is masssive himself. I absolutely believe that had he brought an RfA that's wasn't an ''obvious troll'', he would not have been blocked. Would he have passed? Well, maybe not this time. But a serious attempt might have laid the groundwork for the future. Trying to pin the blame for his trolling on other people for not ''psychically predicting it and then talking him out of it ahead of time'' is ludicrous. ] 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(edit conflict) Of course everyone knew an RfA from Masssive would never pass. The fact is, if Masssive had written a serious nomination and provided serious answers to the questions, which I for one was expecting him to do, he would have received 100+ oppose votes, but no block. Comments such as AmiDaniel's on that voting survey page suggest that I wasn't the only one who was expecting a serious request. -- ] 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Furthermore I don't know about other users but if it had been a serious request I for one at least would have considered it. I think his behavior in regard to RfAs indicates an inability to work well with others and I might oppose or neutral for that reason. But the assumption that a serious RfA would have been 100 oppose votes and nothing else is unwarranted. ] 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, he's blocked for a non-serious RFA? Sounds like your punishing him, unless you think he's going to disrupt Misplaced Pages by constantly making non-serious RFA's. I think both blocks are a little inappropriate. ] 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It doesn't matter that the RfA actually caused little to no disruption. It doesn't matter that he was encouraged to file it by the very people (save W.marsh) who blocked him. It doesn't matter that it was entirely predictable that any current RfA from him would not be serious given the obvious fact that it would not pass. He's unpopular and there is a pretext... so hey, block for a week. Which sadly does more to make the case he has been saying about the actions of some admins than anything else he might have ever accomplished. Oh well. 'The admin community has spoken'. --] 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I've said, he does very little but troll for attention, the RfA was an obvious example of that. That's disruptive, in my opinion. Misplaced Pages shouldn't exist to ammuse trolls. --] 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :By blocking Massiveego you gave him that attention he actually may have wanted ;-). I don't see how an RfA should warrant a block. Blocking won't help here. A bit oppose piling and then everything would have been done. Now you guys and girls are blowing up the whole thing here. Not very intelligent. --] 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm inclined to agree at least in so far as Strangelove is right that he isn't going to repeat this presumably. However, given his past behavior we may have a serious worry that he will find some other way of trolling. As of now however the block does seem more punitive than preventative. ] 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The trolls have figured out that they can always count on some admin to be a dissenter and argue in favor of even the worst trolls, thus creating the disruption they wanted in the first place. --] 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The block is preventative because he showed no signs of slowing his trolling efforts. Ideally the community could just ignore them, but this thread is a sad testament that we're ignorant of trolling 101 here. Well said Cyde. --] 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who needs to 'argue in defense of trolls'. Some of us just argue against admins engaging in incivility (e.g. calling ''anyone'' a troll), excessive blocks (e.g. one week with no warning and no preventative basis), bias (e.g. this user is unpopular so it is ok), et cetera. Doesn't matter who the target of the abuse is... just that this isn't the way admins are supposed to act. --] 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: So, CBD: ]? ] 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe that's meant as sarcasm, but it's late and I can't sense it, but I think that's going a bit too far. – ]] 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: It's a basic debate trap and logical fallacy... trying to change the argument so there's no answer that's "correct". --] 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Expanding on that a bit, while I agree that calling a good-faith editor a troll is incivil, there ''are'' people whom it is OK to call trolls: to wit, trolls. I do it, Jimbo does it, everyone does it. The idea that we're supposed to wear white gloves and pretend they don't exist is poor. My rule of thumb is that what is incivil is to call someone a troll ''to their face'', since if true it accomplishes nothing and if false it's just insulting. However, using the term descriptively while talking with other admins is fine, so that we can measure appropriate response (and you may have noticed that most admins are not shy about disagreeing with the evaluation that someone is a troll, if they disagree). I think your characterizing what has gone on in this case as "abuse" is somewhat over-the-top, as my lampooning of your argument shows. ] 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While you are sadly correct that admin incivility and personal attacks are widespread... no they are not something that "everyone" does. This idea that 'if admins decide that someone is a troll then they can call the person a troll' '''directly''' contradicts ]. The same page even lists repeatedly calling someone a troll (even to third parties) as an example of personal attacks. I completely reject the principle that we are ''allowed'' to be incivil... 'because they deserve it'. No way. We should be held to ''higher'' standards. Not lower ones. --] 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I really am bothered that an admin would apparently support an obvious troll over someone like me, who has clearly never editted in bad faith or even been accused of it. We really need to stop feeding the trolls, I'll say it again. --] 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This interpretation is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with "supporting" anybody in anything. But actually, you can feed trolls by blocking them. The intention of trolls is to test the system. As long as they don't vandalise or mess up anything they should be simply ignored. I fail to see how a single RfA falls into this category. Please at least shorten the block to 48 hours or so if you really feel urged to block in this case. A week is way over the top. --] 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm sorry that you are bothered by this, but this idea that one user is 'supported over' another is completely wrong. There ''should'' be no hierarchy where 'recognized as better' users get to do things that others cannot. Calling people trolls is prohibitted by policy... doesn't matter who does it. Yes, even Jimbo has done that... and people called him out over it. Personal attacks are '''always''' a bad idea, no matter what the 'difference in status' between the two users. The entire mindset of 'who do you support' is a blight on Misplaced Pages IMO. I look at your actions and I look at his actions and I criticize each on their merits regardless of who they were directed at. He made a mildly silly RfA... following encouragement. Ummm... sorry, but that just doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. At most I might have said, 'ok, hah hah... knock it off, I am closing this down', and don't do it again. You placed a lengthy block for non-existant disruption (the RfA was already closed), called the guy a troll repeatedly, et cetera. Are you generally a nicer guy / better contributor / higher 'access level' than him? Maybe so... but ''entirely'' irrelevant to me. I don't judge situations on the 'hierarchical status' of the participants. We aren't supposed to and it's not good for Misplaced Pages when we do. --] 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Given the massive admin support for allowing trolling and attacking good faith editors, I have decided to unblock him. --] 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you, W.Marsh. It seems likely to me that one of the folks above will re-re-block him, but I appreciate that you were willing to look at others' point of view. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I also appreciate your efforts to discuss this and apologize for what you took as "attacking good faith editors". It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'. I disagree with your action here, but there can be no question that it is a common view which you would have every reason to think 'right'. I strongly disagree with that ''view'', but do not mean to 'attack' you. I don't know you (or Massive either, beyond being familiar with contention around his RfA participation). You may well be the nicest and most productive user on Misplaced Pages... and I didn't mean to say anything to imply that was not the case. We disagree, but that's it. --] 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No, you and others have accused me of abuse. That is an attack. And it's in defense of a troll. I see where people's priorities are now... defend the trolls and talk about how abusive the good faith editors are. This is horrible. --] 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I feel it necessary to respond to the points above, in case people are under the impression that I may have been trying to '''"trap"''' Masssiveego to block him. Firstly, I said that if he wanted to run in an RfA, then he would be free to do so . If anybody looks at the ten RfA nominations that I have prepared at ] as well as my answers to questions at ] it is easy to see that I take things seriously and have a high standard of what a "proper" RfA is - with a proper nomination and answers to questions - indeed I have received some good-natured jibes about my statements being excessive. I honestly felt that his RfA was not serious, as in some RfAs he had complained about others' lack of attention to detail himself. I was not intending to punish him, I felt that there was a possibility he would try and respond to the opposes in similar ways as in ]. In no way was I goading him to trap and punish him - I have never indulged in retaliatory voting at RfA as can be seen by my record. As to whether the block actually made things worse and garnered attention - that may be the case and at no stage do I rule out the possiblity that a block may be a strategic mistake. I am not hurt/bothered that other admins may disagree with me and reverse my block, my decisions are not above scrutiny, nor should they be. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm ''very'' surprised that you didn't anticipate the sort of RfA he would file, but perhaps I am benefitting from 20/20 hindsight. I apologize for having thought that oversight implausible. To the rest I would only say, "felt there was a possibility he would..." sounds like a reason to ''warn'' him not to do that. Neh? --] 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Maybe you should consider extending to your fellow admins just a fraction of the sort of good faith you expect them to extend to trolls, vandals, and disruptors, and then they wouldn't ] 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmmm, I wouldn't have blocked over this, but I can see why it was done. I'm concerned that every time there's a block imposed these days people want to argue about the reasons why they wouldn't have done it, rather than appreciating that there's an element of discretion and judgment with these things. Two reasonable admins may take different approaches, and I think we should be fairly deferential to each other's judgment. Given that there was a block, it was rather long IMHO, but that could have been discussed with the blocking admins in a courteous way, i.e.: "Um, a week is rather long for a first block without a warning. Would you consider reducing it to 24 hours?" That's all that has to be said if we assume our colleagues who have undergone the ordeal of fire and water to become admins are reasonable people. (We should all be open to suggestions when they are put like that.) And yes, I do think we need to be as supportive of each other as possible unless someone does something obviously abusive or bizarre. ] 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is exactly what I did , Metamagician. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, and I saw that, and also that it got a bad reaction. I'm not being critical of ''you''. FWIW, I think that the response you received was over-sensitive. Yes, if someone asked me as nicely as that to shorten a block I'd almost certainly comply. It's definitely not your fault that W.marsh was not receptive to your approach. Hey, I'm not laying blame with just one person here, but I'm trying to express a view about how we should try to work together and be supportive of each other while also being willing to offer and receive courteous, respectful advice. Jeeze, I'm starting to make myself feel sick here. "Kumbaya ... kumbaya ..." ] 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Come-on Nandesuka. If W.marsh wants to leave, this is up to him (although it is ridiculous. See also ;-). Again, a block of a week for a single boring soon-to-be-failing snow-ball oppose RfA is way over the top. You are making an elephant out of a mouse here. Blocking is not intended for such a behaviour. As such, criticism is well appropriate. If you can't stand that, then don't issue such inflammatory blocks. --] 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nandesuka, I'm sorry that W.marsh continues to see this in terms of 'only I or Massiveego can be right and these people support him over me'. I ''don't'' 'value Massiveego more than W.marsh' as he says, but there is nothing I can do about it if he continues to be fixed in that mindset after I have repeatedly said otherwise. I hope W.marsh will reconsider and/or realize that his stated reasons for being mad aren't true to begin with. Nobody here 'prefers trolls to valued contributors'. If you think it is "abusive" to disagree with personal attacks maybe you should try to get ] rewritten to say that admins ''can'' abuse users they don't like. --] 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thought occurred to me that Massiveego may not have all his eggs in one basket, and I don't mean that as an insult, but as a defense of his actions. If this isn't the case, then my guess is he is trolling. CBD, you need to get out, fight the vandals on RC patrol, and become more adept at identifying those that are here primarily for disruption.--] 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please, Mongo, let's not turn this into a "I've got more experience than you"-type debate, which is what your "you need to get out, fight the vandals on RC patrol, and become more adept at identifying those that are here primarily for disruption" comment looks like to me. CBD is free to disagree with this block, and I, frankly, agree with him. Let's also not turn this into a "Is Masssiveego insane?" debate, which is ''entirely out of our purview''. The question is about the block. The user was not warned before the block, received a week-long block for a ''first offence'' when ] states blocks for disruption should start at 24 hours, the user has had his block extended several times since then, and the user has been called a troll repeatedly by several users (even administrators!), against ] policy. I don't believe administrators are "above the law"; we're here to enforce the rules, not ignore them. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, facts are facts. Whether Masssiveego is a troll or not is not for me to say, but he was definitely trolling, and that is an accurate description of his actions. His talk page is littered with comments by myself and a few others in regards to what his purposes on Misplaced Pages are about. When you have experience dealing with these types of situations, you are less likely to assume bad faith on the part of admins, who, by the way, are following policies, if you bothered to get familiar with them. Don't try and wikilawyer about this block...if he returns to his trolling (action description), then the block should be for a month, or indefinitely.--] 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't believe you know enough of my background to make assertions that I haven't had experience in dealing with "these types of situations". I am not assuming the bad faith of ''any'' admin, and I ''have'' bothered to get familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, and calling someone a troll repeatedly, which is what some admins have been doing, ''is'' listed as a personal attack on the ] page. Being an admin doesn't make calling someone a troll repeatedly somehow OK. I have not accused you of anything, and I expect the same treatment from you. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Look at the editing history, examine the facts about this editors patterns and then make a well educated guess at what his intentions are. I see almost nothing but trolling editing patterns and not any loss to the community if he were to be blocked indefinitely. If the week block allows him to reform, then great, it served its purpose. If he returns to the same patterns, then why waste our time with him? Arguing about silly little words like troll is ridiculous considering the borderline harassment he has imposed a few RFA nominees to with his ] voting record.--] 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Mongo, I have agreed with you in the past. I agree with your above statement on several points: that this RFA was a disturbance, that blocks ''can'' make users reform, and that there are hopeless cases that cannot be reformed. I ''don't'' agree that violating an official policy about calling someone a troll repeatedly is OK if the person doing it is an administrator, or if the user somehow "deserves it": ] makes this clear. I ''don't'' agree that an over-1-week-long block for a first offence without even a warning message was appropriate: that's why we have rules on blocking. I ''don't'' agree that Masssiveego's voting on RFAs is harassment, even "borderline harassment". RFA has a long history of users !voting in ususual ways: my personal "favorite" was the "7/24ths edits must be in talk space" requirement someone was using for a while. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Oh, what a sorry mess this has turned out to be === | |||
| I have agreed with ] throughout most of this discussion although I think he probably got a little too sharp in his defense of ]. I'm sorry that ] has been so offended as to want to leave. I agree with ] that such petulance is a bit ridiculous, even to the point of being... uh, well, I guess I better not say that as it would be considered uncivil. | |||
| I think ] has a problem although I can't quite figure out what it is. I first became aware of his RFA voting via a query that he made asking if he could be blocked for voting Oppose on RFAs. The answer was "No although it would help to provide reasons". Someone asked him what his criteria were and he gave a defensible answer although the standard was very high. I actually was starting to develop some respect for him. I am very disappointed and disillusioned by this joke RfA. | |||
| That said, I think blocking was an over-reaction. Either a massive oppose vote or SNOWballing the RFA would have been sufficient. It's not as if ] was vandalizing or engaging in serial incivility. | |||
| I admire ] for his principled opposition to the block although I think it was a bit too spirited. I can understand why he went "over the top" in the face of opposition from just about everybody else. | |||
| I hope we can close ranks and get back to the work of building an encyclopedia. | |||
| Best regards to all. | |||
| --] 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed the RFA and did not intend to block Masssiveego. That the block has generated this much argument, however, surprises me; he was clearly trolling, to which the Misplaced Pages community is disappointingly susceptible. Ignore him and he'll go away. — ] | ] 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Richard, and I can see where my opposition might seem stronger than warranted... though that's likely more due to this sort of thing being a personal hot button of mine. I strongly believe that any sort of 'double standard' for admins is horribly bad for Misplaced Pages. I compare Massiveego putting up a 'silly' RfA and getting a week long block with no warning to Cyde 'vandalizing' user pages in 'funny' ways, unprotecting the Main page, et cetera to be 'silly' despite ''numerous'' warnings... and getting little blocks of 15 minutes or a few hours. That's not equitable. Massiveego was encouraged to post an RfA (by people who apparently didn't guess that it wouldn't be a serious attempt)... Cyde was strongly warned to stop. Which was more willfully disrupting the encyclopedia? The admin community looked at Cyde's much more disruptive and deliberate actions and placed minor blocks (about nine hours in total) which were entirely preventative in nature. They looked at Massiveego's action and placed an entirely punitive week long block and collectively went on a 'personal attack fest'. Before anyone freaks out... I'm not saying that Cyde should have been blocked longer. He shouldn't have - until he stopped being disruptive was all that was needed. I'm saying that there is an obvious disparity in treatment which does more damage to Misplaced Pages than all the trolls and vandals combined ever will... in large part because it serves to ''create'' trolls and vandals. --] 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Tobias Conradi redux == | |||
| <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> persists in assuming bad faith, accusing other editors of lying, disregarding warnings and in general unacceptably incollegiate behaviour, despite multiple warnings, and multiple blocks. Here is just one example I ( {{admin|Lar}} have blocked him for one week because I am thinking he still, despite much warning, counsel, outreach, discussion, and general expenditure of time and effort, does not get it. Please do not unblock or shorten without seeking consensus here first. My next block of this editor is likely to be indefinite as I think he's getting close to exhausting the communities patience. As always I welcome review or feedback on my actions. ++]: ]/] 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, to me this looks more and more like harassment ''of'' the user. Yes, Tobias Conradi reacts very badly when he is treated in an unfair and/or abusive manner. Perhaps various admins ought to stop doing that? Maybe Chairboy and Pschemp could '''not''' improperly delete perfectly valid stubs ( right after he creates them? Maybe Pschemp could ''not'' place an unwarranted block on him for trying to move a discussion about the 'Kayah Li' article to the ] page? Where exactly is that proscribed by policy? Or a block for it remotely proper? Maybe you, Lar, could stop ''warning'' him on civility every few days while saying nothing about your fellow admins making incivil comments and personal attacks ( ), ''to'' him? You badger this user ''constantly'' with threats of blocks, telling him that he has to keep your warnings displayed on his talk page or you will block him for removing them, and insisting that he should not complain about admin actions... even though '''many''' of those admin actions were in fact improper or mistakes. Then you act surprised when the user accuses admins of stalking and abusing him. I can't imagine that it would look like anything else from his perspective. It looks rather alot like that from mine. This user has been blocked for 3RR ''by'' the admin who was edit warring with him, mistakenly blocked for user page vandalism that turned out not to be, blocked for complaining about that mistaken block, blocked longer for complaining about ''that'' block, et cetera. He has reason to feel abused by admins. It is absolutely true that Tobias Conradi should do a ''much'' better job of responding to such things politely and moving on... but I for one get tired of watching a pack of admins harass and abuse a user and then point and say, 'look how angry and incivil he is being'. Stop harassing him and the problem would end. You say that you want to help him be a positive contributor, but it seems obvious that he is only ''not'' such when he is fighting with admins whom he thinks (often correctly) have mistreated him. Stop mistreating and/or fighting with him and the problem goes away. --] 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::CBD, would it be accurate to sum up your above as "if you stopped enforcing policy, Tobias would stop breaking it"? That sounds like a circular argument. I deleted a sub-stub (Kayah Li) that all the other admins I consulted agreed met CSD-A1 because it lacked sufficient context. That's the extent of my action, but then Tobias instantly jumped to calling the deletion admin-abuse. In fact, the first thing he did was page, THEN he telling me to undelete it. The fact that I ended up on his 'abusive admins' list before he even talked to me is significant. As far as I know, I've never interacted with him before this, but he jumped straight to abuse. For your argument to work, he would have needed to have been 'persecuted' by me previously. Instead, we've got an editor that jumps straight to assuming bad faith. I immediately of the deleted article to his userspace with the that he expand and repost it. Instead, he planted his heels in the ground and just kept calling me an admin. I've been polite, civil, and encouraging to him the entire time, but he has not returned the favor. He has alternately called me a liar, stupid, and malicious. He has accused me of vandalism and deleted my responses on his talk page. Finally, he has a page with a ] that have attacked him. CBD, ask yourself if it seems at all unusual that he's had soooo many run-ins with evil administrators. At what point do you start to examine the claims critically? I've to help Tobias with setting up an RfC against me (in light of his continuing claims that I've maliciously abused my "powers") but every time he backs off. His persecution complex does not, it appears, seem to extend a formal airing of issues. I am beginning to have a difficult time assuming good faith on his behalf based on what appears to be an almost pathological victim complex. I feel that if he were really interested in the Kayah Li article that started this whole thing, he would have spent the 30 seconds needed to add context to the userfied content I sent him and reposted it. Instead, he has attempted to turn this into some sort of circus. He has created a page called the , a grand name for a sub-stub that was appropriately deleted under WP:CSD. He is a prolific editor that has amassed a tremendous number of edits, but that edit history does not appear to have come with a commensurate maturity, understanding of WP policy, and civility to other users. I endorse Lar's block and hope he will come back a productive user who does not choose picking fights over contributing to the project. - ]</small> (]) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::To answer your first question, no, obviously that is not anything remotely like an accurate description of my position. Say rather, 'if admins would stop violating policy Tobias would stop responding in kind'. The fact that other admins supported your deletion of does not change the fact that it was '''not''' a proper use of CSD A1... as many people have since affirmed. Indeed, admin support of a plainly out of process deletion rather proves his complaint. It was a valid stub which provided complete context of what the subject was. Yes, he reacted very badly to the deletion... see above where I've said this repeatedly. You call his reaction a "persecution complex" (demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him)... but generally those only come into existence following actual persecution. No, he doesn't have past history with you... but as I demonstrated he ''does'' with other admins. Consider that maybe he isn't 'acting in bad faith' as you suggest above, but legitimately feels 'persecuted'. Because he has been. --] 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With respect, CBD, I think we're going to have to disagree about this. I welcome scrutiny of my actions, and if there's an RfC, I'll be there. Please find an example of incivility in my dealings with Tobias during this, you just implied that I've been rude to him and I'd like a diff please. - ]</small> (]) 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Um... look up. You don't see anything 'rude' about, "almost pathological victim complex"? I don't think you've committed any heinous incivility (his has been notably worse), but no... you haven't been perfectly nice either. I'm sorry you don't agree about the nature of A1, but there really just isn't any question about it. That was not a valid A1. The context of the article was absolutely clear. --] 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::To be clear, I said that I felt he had a victim complex, and I said that above. You said "demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him" in reference to that. When I asked for an example, you pointed right back at the same text. That's self referential. You implied that I had been anything less than civil with him when talking to him, and I've asked for a diff. Please provide it. - ]</small> (]) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Since saying he has a "persecution complex" and an "almost pathological victim complex" are somehow ''not'' incivil how 'bout the condescending, Again, I'm not saying you were horrifically mean, but this tenacious 'no I was right' reaction is just the sort of thing I was talking about. You weren't right. You haven't been acting "with nothing but civilness". Congratulations, you're human. So is he. Cut the guy some slack and consider, 'hey maybe me deleting his article like that might have been annoying'. --] 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well CBD, I sometimes find you annoying but i don't respond with immediate, constant blatant incivility. Stop making excuses for Tobias's bad behaviour. Annoyance doesn't excuse his actions, especially considering chairboy never interacted with him before. ] | ] 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Me? Annoying? Impossible. :] No, I don't 'make excuses' for him. I have said (over and over and over again) that his reaction was wrong.... but that isn't the only problem here. The actions ''against'' him were wrong too... and until people start addressing ''that'' it seems obvious that the problems will continue. Yes, we should try to get him to be less hostile to admins. Step one - stop giving him reasons to be hostile. Seems better for everyone. Constantly harping on him... how's that working out thus far? Anyone think it's sure to work if we just keep at it? --] 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm sorry but Chairboy was correct in his deletion, kindly put the deletion in userspace, was never hostile to Tobias and has never harped on Tobias in his life. Tobias's reaction was rude, uncivil, and unwarranted. Tobias is a victim of nothing but his own temper, and never assumes good faith in anything, and you are making excuses for him by claiming he is the victim. He brought all of this on himself by not being able to control his temper. His reactions were his choices, no one else's, and just as you said, there is no excuse for incivilty, so why are you trying to give him one? Even if Chairboy's action was a mistake, (which it wasn't) Tobias reaction is out of line. Way out of line. This is a simple matter of a man who can't control his temper, when nothing was done to deliberatley provoke him by Chairboy. That is unacceptable behaviour and actions against him resulting from this uncivilness are entirely justified. ] | ] 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tobias Conradi is either performance art or someone who doesn't get it, I agree, but let's escalate from week to months rather than indefinite, please. ] 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I also don't think indefinite is warranted here, as Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him. The attempt to paint him as the victim is laughable though. Tobias has been yelling admin abuse from day one, before he was ever blocked for his quite uncivil responses and rants. CBD is also ignoring Tobias's use of IP sockpuppets and meantpuppets to get around his blocks, and the fact that even the people who try to be nice to the man get lambasted by him. Aditionally, moving an irrelevant personal argument about speedy deletions to the talk page of a deleted article is not appropriate. Chairboy has acted with nothing but civilness here, has no hostory with Tobias, and yet has met with incivilty at every comment. He even userfied the deletion so Tobias could work on it. I'm sorry but Tobias has shown that he in incapable of dealing with even the smallest disagreement in a civil fashion (even before the alleged mistreatment) and as such deserves blocks until he can learn to play nice. Excusing incivilty because Tobias has an admin abuse chip on his shoulder is unfair to those editors who do remain civil in conflicts. ] | ] 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think indefinite is warranted this time, which is why I went with a week. And I'm not averse to trying months next time rather than indefinite. But I have to take issue with some notions mooted early on in this thread, namely that giving civility warnings (when instead, based on prior history and the knowledge that the user has been told what the problem is) instead of just handing out a block, or giving out more than one block, is somehow stalking or harassment. (and further, I think calling it that shows disrespect to admins and their judgement... CBD ought to know better) Taken to the extreme, that means that any one admin could only ever give out one warning or block to a particular misbehaving user. And that's not workable. Further, while I think that admins should be held accountable if they are incivil, I'm not seeing that there is massive incivility on the part of admins in this case (I admit bias!), and more importantly, I don't think it appropriate that a user get a "free pass" because an admin wasn't civil. That's a double standard, it says admins have to be perfect or else users can be as nasty as they like. Anyone who reviews Tobias's discussion with other users will find a pattern of repeated nastiness that there seems to be little prospect of ever changing. His interaction with Chairboy is perfect evidence of it... continued hostility and wild accusations of all sorts of things and no acknowledgement that he did anything that could stand improvement. If you want more, look at the tail end of ] where a previously more or less uninvolved editor {{user|Evertype}} gives some good advice and Tobias rips into him for it. We need to get away from the notion that a lot of previous conttributions give you a free pass to act like a prat. I've seen it in several cases lately and it's corrosive and damaging. I agree with pschemp, above but note that "Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him." == "NOT a productive contributor" because disagreements ''happen''. They are part of how things get better. If you can't disagree civilly, your contributions, however large, can be done without. ''No one'' is indispensable to this project. So, I will continue to monitor this user's behaviour and if it doesn't get better, probably block again, or, seek another editor to apply it. ++]: ]/] 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lar, again... the fact that Tobias responds very badly to mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions is a reason to block him. It is absolutely '''not''' a reason to continue to engage in mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions against him. You all keep going on about how he should not "get a 'free pass'" because of 'number of contributions'... which is a complete straw man. Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok? That he should not be blocked? No. I'm saying that admins should not be deleting his articles out of process, hounding him over every civility infraction, subjecting him to incivility and personal attacks in turn, blocking him for edit wars they took part in, telling him not to complain about admin actions, forcing him to keep warnings displayed on his page, et cetera. On your intention to continue to "monitor" Tobias I refer you to ] and leave it at that. --] 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok?" I have seen you leave that implication. First, you characterise admins monitoring his behaviour as "harassement" which leaves the implication that he did nothing incorrect, at least in the way that he apparently analyses things (based on my own analysis of his statements) Also, see here: See also here: where you don't address that he has things he needs to do to get it lifted, just that you want it lifted. You're leaving him the impression that you think this block is not justified. Given who you are dealing with, it is my view that you need to be a lot more careful and precise in your statements. As for my monitoring Tobias, I don't see the issue you do with watching a problematic user to see if they continue to cause problems. Because this user is problematic, nothing you have said refutes that. I think you need to think harder about whether your actions, in general, are helping, or undercutting, other admins and their efforts to make this a better place. ++]: ]/] 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Lar nails it in one. ] 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I just blocked {{vandal|Mike Garcia}} indefinitely following to his talk page, where he seems to admit being behind "Johnny the Vandal". ] ] 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Mike has a troubled history, but do other people see that admission as being a little vague? ] 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Abso-fragging-lutely. What that diff actually says is "anybody trying to create an account with email <code><john@freeq.com></code> is 'Johnny the Vandal'…". Try reading it again. HTH HAND {{unsigned|Phil Boswell}} | |||
| **Well, if it's true, it certainly doesn't surprise me at all. --]|] 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Hmmm, now you mention it, it could be read another way. However I think the reference to Jimbo allowing the account back in means he is referring to his own account, since it was Jimbo's personal intervention that got ] unblocked in the first place. Notice that Mike's recent edits have been almost solely tagging supposed sockpuppets of JtV. The way I see it, this admission could have something to do with the increasing appliance of ] and the recent deletion of {{tl|Johnny the Vandal}} and ]. I have informed Jimbo on his talk page anyways. ] ] 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Again, I've never had any good fortune dealing with Mike, and I was trying to not refer to his distant past, but, because of the ambiguity, I'd recommend lifting the block, or at least shortening it, until this is hashed out a bit more. (Again, Mike has been a ball of frustration for me, but I don't see him ''quite'' admitting to being JtV, and it's within Mike's personality to start on something like catching JtV and then following through to the exclusion of everything else, so that's no evidence, one way or the other.) ] 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Has anybody told Danny about this? It was through his efforts that the unrepentant troll who is Mike Garcia was allowed back to Misplaced Pages. Danny probably has good rapport with him, and might be able to get some information. It does look like he's been playing us all along, though, especially referring to Jimbo as "Wales", which implies a little more ... enmity, I guess would be the word, than someone who seems to have autism, or whatever other things he has claimed to have. I've never been happy with his returning, especially his repeated nastiness to me and to Hephaestos, and I blame him for Hephaestos having left Misplaced Pages, and never understood the rush to bring him back. Unless and until he makes a '''''completely understandable''''' explanation, keep him banned. ]|] 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the critical thing is that first sentence. I'll go check, but Danny is his mentor, so he should want to know. I've no words to say in Mike's defense, but he went several months with legitimate, if...socially unaware...edits. A person with autism could well choose the wrong level of familiarity, misunderstand nuance, and get obsessive about tracking a vandal, but that's neither here nor there. If there are no notes about this on Danny's page, I'll drop one. ] 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Though Mike is (in?)famous for being an AOL user it may be worth running a checkuser - he could be one of the lucky ones to be getting an XFF header (or is that still not implemented?) Also I'm going to be away for a few days, and just want to make it clear I have no problem with anyone overturning/shortening the block if they feel it appropriate. ] ] 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, at least this explains why it's been virtually impossible to use AOL over the last few weeks. And no, there still aren't any XFF headers, and there probably never will be. But if a vandal is stupiud enough to use a 172, those can be checkusered--] 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Apologies from 'Mr.Pelican Shit' == | |||
| Hi, I am specifically one of the people involved in ]. | |||
| I want to apologise for our misdeeds which we actually stopped doing a long time ago - about late 2005. The pelican shit thing began as a joke after a night out when we came back from a club in ] and we ended up covered in white stuff (actually foam, but one Australian guy said "bugger all, that's pelican shit!" and we found Misplaced Pages when researching info on Middlesbrough for coursework in college. | |||
| Anyhow, we hope we can be forgiven for it, we want to contribute positively. Can you recover the deleted ] page and move it to my userspace for posterity. | |||
| We want to make encyclopedic contributions on ] and ]-related topics. | |||
| Hopefully all can be forgiven. BTW, those on Wiktionary and Commons were imitators, and not us. --] 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If one would really want to keep the past behind them, why would they want a page on their past vandalisms moved to their own userspace? ] 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, it is for transfer to a MediaWiki installation I run - which is sort of like a 'Best of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense' extended version - for our ]! Anyhow, no more 'pelican shit/bluxo/asspus' stuff! --] 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe someone could just e-mail it to you? ] 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll have email working from this account soon enough. Also see if the WoW/Communism/Johnny the Vandal/ncv/marmot pages can be recovered, the GFDL doesn't stop us from using them, does it?? I can say that at college the hits for the WoW and Communism pages resulted in them getting blocked by sysadmins in college! | |||
| But anyhow, is there a WikiProject on North East England I could get involved in?? --] 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, yet more proof that ] is working. All the more reason to not cave in and give them back their vandalism page "for posterity". Yeesh. --] 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think he's apologizing only because he wants the page. ] 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is apparently a bot operated by the banned user ]. None of the edits it has made seem to be productive, and it reverts attempts to undo its edits. --] 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Someone please ban this immediately indefinately as a sockpuppet. See diff for example. ] ] ] ] ] 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your post ate mine. I ''have'' blocked indefinitely. Cheers. ] ] 10:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: And I edit conflucted with you... —] / 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My apologies. I literally waited 3 and a half minutes for my edit to go through due to a routing error on my end. I figured something like that would happen. Thanks. ] ] ] ] ] 10:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And now we have {{userlinks|WolfStar3}} ] ] 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::<Sigh> Let's all sing: "I ain't gonna tolerate Maggie's farm no more." (And, of course, we still have her arguing and disrupting, just one heading below.) ] 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bearing in mind that there is no RFCU filed on WhiskeyRebellion; it could merely be another editor interested in anarchism and human rights. Until that suspicion is cleared up (which I hope it will be; hence posting the reminder about the previous AN/I discussion), we should try to assume some good faith. ] * ] 12:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Amnesty International article == | |||
| First off, I work for ], but I'm here in a personal capacity. However, I've been told it's a Conflict of Interest to edit the page. Fine, but someone else should look at ]'s edits. He's been seriously pushing an anti-Arms Control position on the article, he's even admitted to writing a POV piece. ] 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, Donnacha, I said my first edit included a sentence that was written in a pov fashion. I was being honest and changed it completely. My edits are neutral and sourced. You object to my and other editors' edits constantly because they get in the way of your apparant Amnesty International public relations job here at Misplaced Pages. You work for them. You are making and reverting in a biased way. Also, you continually attack other editors rather than commenting on their edits. You made '''10''' reverts yesterday, too. You should simply not be editing this article. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at ] I don't see anything drastically point-of-view. Can you explain what in particular you are concerned about? Equally I would ask both of you to calm down and go and find something else to do than edit these articles for a few days. ] 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look back at the history. Mr Whiskey posted a personal criticism of the Control Arms Campaign, then linked to a cite that didn't criticise AI (in fact, it quoted them in support of the author's argument) and now, having failed to find a proper cite as asked, has, instead, decided to expand the Control Arms piece of the History out of proportion with the other campaigns, despite me starting an article on the Campaign (the link to which he's removed), and removed it from the criticism section. He's consistently tried, as someone who opposes arms control, to push his point of view and now, with increasing attention on the piece, he's hiding behind factual quotes - the lack of proportionality and balance in the history section is now the POV problem. There's also a typo in it - "It's stated intent". Anyway, I'm not going to edit it anymore, so it's up to others now. ] 13:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As a reminder, one of the users involved in this particular content dispute (which it is) has ] recently. To be honest, ] or one of the other steps in the dispute resolution process would be a better place to go. Alternatively, if there's a problem with excessive reverts, there's the 3RR board. The best step, of course, would be to step back, smile at each other, and work out your differences calmly and keeping in mind Misplaced Pages policies first and foremost. It's a freaking 💕, guys. Not worth yelling at each other over. ] * ] 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's also worth noting that quite a few people volunteer for AI and even more are sympathetic, so I'm not sure that working for them is anything like a bar to editing the article. AI has thousands of volunteers and contributors and members, so we have to look at what's written and not the personal life of the authors. ] 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Totally agree. There is no rule that being affiliated to something stops you from editing the article, as long as policies such as ] are followed. In fact, it is a good thing if the editor can bring useful information to the article. ] 06:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Being paid by an organization and then editing articles about that organization is a conflict of interest. It's similar to people editing articles on themselves. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We ] the latter provided the edits are ] and ]ly ], and fixing vandalism is always permissible: what's wrong with the former under the same stringent conditions? HTH HAND —] | ] 08:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually, the policy as currently written ''does'' allow that, contrary to what Woohookitty says, it only stops those who "]", which I'm not. I happen to work for AI, but I'm here voluntarily as a private individual. ] 10:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Stirling Newberry / D Sanchez / R Lopez == | |||
| There is strangeness going on here, and I'm hoping someone can sort it out. | |||
| I've blocked SN for 3RR. SN says he was reverting socks of R Lopez (]). ] says that SN may well be RL. But T Turner is indef blocked as an attack account. Meanwhile D Sanchez is going around adding SN to the list of RL socks... | |||
| ] 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blocked D Sanchez indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and I've reverted his edits about Stirling. I have no idea about the Lopez sockpuppet tags he added, so I've left them in place until I can work out what's going on. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're both right--there ''is'' something strange going on here, and I've been having trouble figuring out exactly what is going on. There is at least one abusive user who is certainly at work making sockpuppets to attack and harass Stirling (] is an obvious example, and <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> himself is an obvious impostor/sockpuppet (this delightful edit says it all). Here's another fine user <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> who might be involved, since "Ray Lopez" became active shortly after he was blocked. On some of the most recent stuff -- such as ] (] • ]) -- who is in Italy and doesn't appear to be an open proxy -- I dunno. I think there's more than one person harassing Stirling. | |||
| ::I think a checkuser on the Stirling-harassers, at least the recent ones, might be in order. ] ] 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK... on this basis I'm going to unblock SN for 3RR, whilst reminding him to be a bit more cautious ] 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Marudubshinki running a bot again== | |||
| {{userlinks|Marudubshinki}} was previously blocked on a number of occasions and currently has an arbitration case being considered at ] for use of an unapproved bot against ] policy. He now appears to be running an unapproved ] - . As an involved party in the RFAR, I would prefer not to get any more involved at this time. Could someone deal with this please. -- ] 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] That section is empty, perhaps a temp AC inj. needs to be seeked. – ]] 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a thread about this on this page already, scroll up a bit. I'm not aware that you need approval to run a script that requires human approval to make each edit, which seems to be what he was doing this time (see the other thread for my explanation of why this almost certainly wasn't an unattended bot). (after edit conflict) As Chacor mentions, seek an injunction if you want him to be stopped from using any kind of special assistance to edit. --] 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, but I didn't see that thread above, and your response there makes sense to me, although I would have thought that running the bot (human-assisted or not) has a sniff of arrogance given the RFAR. I withdraw this request. -- ] 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've blocked him ''again''. I wouldn't recommend unblocking at this point until his arbitration is over because it's becoming quite clear that we cannot trust him not to run unauthorized bots no matter how many times we ask him to. If he wants to make a statement, let him do so to his user talk page and have someone copy it over to the arbitration page. --] 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's also ] we can't trust ''you'' not to run unauthorized bots, but you aren't blocked. If his edits aren't a problem why should he be blocked? --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cydebot is authorized. It even has a bot flag. What are you on about? --] 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Merely pointing out that when you were ] about your bot doing things it hadn't been authorized to do, your response was "whatever," but now you seem to think running unauthorized bots calls for immediate blocking. Even stranger, your bot's unauthorized activity was substing a template that ], requiring a non-admin to manually revert all its edits, whereas all of Maru's robot assisted edits appear to be good faith and constructive. Just wondering how your philosophy on unauthorized bots has evolved over time. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 00:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You seem to be arguing an entirely different issue, that bots should be approved for ''each separate task'' (which is arguable). What I'm arguing is that bots need to be approved, ''period''. That's not arguable and that ''is'' a basic part of the bot policy. --] 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From ]: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do." So, the idea that "bots should be approved for '''each separate task'''" is "arguable" in the sense that "The Earth is round." is arguable. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Why don't you do a poll then. See how many people actually think that a bot must be granted separate permissions to run each different functionality available in pyWikipediaBot. --] 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OK, but let's phrase the poll like this: "Once a bot has been approved for one purpose, it should then be allowed to do whatever the operator feels like." --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding page protection of ] == | |||
| An edit war has been ongoing concerning the into of the ] article. Some editors have been changing the longstanding intro (which achieved a concensus some time ago) to a new version. (I'll hold my opinion on this affair.) It appears {{userlinks|FayssalF}} has locked the page due to the edit war. While I have no problem with this, I am concerned about the specific administrator who locked the page. The page lock states, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." However, FayssalF himself was involved in the revert war, reverting at least twice from the previous consensus version. And rather than locking the page outright, he reverted once more to his desired version before full-protecting the page. I think this is a clear endorsement of a version and another example of administrator abuse from a user who has himself been involved in multiple revert wars on this very article. —] 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Although the article should indeed have been protected, I object to FayssalF's to revert non-vandalism, as well as his revert prior to protection. He definitely should not have performed the protection himself, and the tone used by FayssalF on ] in response to the IP's comprably polite (and correct) statements on ] is unnecessarily harsh. -- ''']''' 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Wow. Has this what it's come down to? IP addresses are immediately seen as sockpuppets or their edits treated in bad faith? ] 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Removing warnings from his Talk page == | |||
| According to ], users may not remove legitimate warnigns from their Talk pages. | |||
| ] has received numerous warnings - for 3RR, for misuse of anit-vandal tools etc.. - which he keeps removing from his Talk page. he has been warned not to do this, yes keeps one doing it, and claiming he is "archiving" - though no archive exists on his page ] 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes I too warned him on ] several weeks ago about some very questionable reverts he was making to ]. He immediately blanked his entire userpage including the discussion on his edits, calling it "archiving". —] 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| A user requested Stingray to be fully protected ]. | |||
| Apparently, the request was denied by Admin YankSox, but they have failed to take in consideration the constant vandalism that the article has been hit with. In the last hour alone, it has been edited over 100 times, most of the edits coming from vandalism and vandalism revertions. | |||
| I would like for an admin(s) to re-consider protecting this page. (I already made a request on ], but I don't think my request will be heard. | |||
| --] 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :To be fair, ] means that it shouldn't be protected due to it being on the main page. – ]] 16:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I know. But I was still hoping it would be re-considered. The vandalism to this page is pretty serious. --] 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *An S-protect wouldn't be out of line, given the Steve Irwin stuff. ] 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've Sprotected it. Heavy vandalism which people aren't always catching. I can see no reason in the policy not to since it's not a featured article - am I being thick? ] 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not to my knowledge. It isn't a featured article, just In-the-News, and the general idea is that we don't protect our FA's, but, even then, we've done it before. This is one of those situations like ''Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince'' where the more juvenile are just going to be itching to scribble. It's one step from being slashdotted. An S-protect is the very thing, IMO. ] 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::As far as I know, this is OK and seems a good thing to do. ] 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism - == | |||
| Dear sirs - The following page has been vandalized http://en.wikipedia.org/Joto_%28comics%29 | |||
| with a block of illiterate, filthy racist commentary. am not a Wikipedian, or I would have taken action myself. Yours, James W. Reynolds <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| :The vandalism has been removed. Thanks for letting us know. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're still more than welcome to remove it. :) – ]] 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism to ]== | |||
| I wasn't sure where to report this but this page is being vandalised with the same website link over and over again. I've been reverting it back every time. The person (or people) doing it are changing one or more of the references to a link that redirects to a site that has nothing to do with the person in question (although his pictures may be hosted somewhere on the site). I warned the first two users about 3RR and each time I did, a different user came along and chaged the links. So I suspect they are sockpuppets as well. Didn't know what to do next so thought I'd mention it here. -- ] (]) 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Several vandal accounts blocked. Will protect if vandalism reoccurs. --] 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for semi-protecting the page. One of the accounts isn't new and has just reverted the page again. -- ] (]) 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User Fix Bayonets! == | |||
| ] (] • ]) has, in the last hour, made a ] against me, violated ] at ], blanked my comments on that article's talk page multiple times, and removed multiple warning messages on his/her user talk page. I have also reported suspected sock puppetry at ]. I would like an admin to review this user's actions. · <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked for a month, I'd do indef but I kind of want to beat into him civility. It may yet be possible. --] 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The block was changed to an per the legal threats, fyi. · <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Pornographic pictures (full male penis') in watermelon search == | |||
| Please note I am not sure how this all works, but when daughter was searching for info. on growing seedless watermelons in florida via google, the following link was unacceptable, especially when think have the right protocols in place to protect children - apparently need to ban wikipedia due to risks. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Watermelon | |||
| link via search words in google "growing seedless watermelons outside Florida" | |||
| :There is no picture of a penis in that article, and if there was it probably would have been removed ASAP for vandalism. There would be a picture of a penis in ] and pictures of breasts in ], as Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors. ] <small>]</small> 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please do your homework before telling someone something didn't happen and trotting out the wikipedia isn't censored thing.] | ] 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Or you can try reading my post. ] <small>]</small> 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did. It implies that the picture might not have been there, which is rude to the newbies (whether you meant it that way or not). If you didn't sorry. A much more polite explanation is the one by LinaMishima below, which leves no doubt as to its intentions to help. ] | ] 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The taxobox template was vandalised with that oh-so-popular penis image; it was caught in a couple of minutes. Template is now locked. ] | ] | 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages makes no assertions of the safety or suitability of any of it's content. Please see the ] linked to at the bottom of every single page. It is the parents' responsibility to check websites for suitability, and all related software does not excuse them from this duty. Debates are ongoing as to what procedures can be used to mitigate such problems without causing a radical shift in openness, and you are welcome to join in with them. ] 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Yea I mangaged to get an penis image with an article that had the template in random earlier today. ] ] 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like someone to the taxobox. I've long been wondering why vandals hit individual articles rather than widely-used templates ... maybe they are "learning". Anyway, it might be a good idea to protect every template that is used on more than X pages, where X is open for debate. --] 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Vandalizing templates that are used on alot of articles is certainly nothing new. I think we should decide on a case-by-case basis whether a template should be (semi)-protected, tho. ] has just been semi-protected, anyways. --]|] 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] got hit by the same vandal a fews days ago too. I've semi-protected it for now. And for good measure, I've also full-protected ] because it's too tempting a target. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism== | |||
| I want to announce vandalism on my user page. --] 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed. ]]]<small>]</small> 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] has been indefinitely blocked as a Bonaparte sockpuppet. — ] (]) 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == stingray article has recent vandalism == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Short-tail_stingray | |||
| has a unfortunate joke recently included | |||
| :Now semi-protected. ]]]<small>]</small> 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a high profile target now due to the death of ] -- <small> ]</small> 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : ] still has vandalism from registered users at time of writing. -- ] 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Battle of Bint Jbeil, Redux (not the user) == | |||
| There is another revert war brewing at ]. I had to protect the page a few days ago, due to a revert war about the same thing this revert war is about, sources. ] continues to revert, citing articles and advocating a page version that is not backed up by the same articles he cites. I am too involved in this matter to execute the protection myself, but if the revert war escalates, I see no choice. ]]]<small>]</small> 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You have failed to mention that you are part of that revert war, having earlier pretended to be a disinterested editor. This is not a revert war, but a content dispute. I have added new sources, new information and quoted your sources verbatim, to remove the POV you had introduced. You have refused to justify your edits on talk, and recent editors have sided with me on that Talk page. Not every content dispute needs to lead to a page block - feel free to explain yourself on Talk before resorting to extreme measures. ] 23:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Bypassing copyright by taking screenshot of webpage? == | |||
| ] | |||
| The uploader {{user|Cardreader}} claims {{tl|Web-software-screenshot}} and has added it to the article ]. It looks like a clever attempt to bypass copyright, and the tag of screenshot doesn't seem to apply here at all. | |||
| Thanks. --] 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A photo of copyrighted material is a violation of the copyright; at its most basic form, the photograph is a COPY and he did not have a RIGHT to make it. --] 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth, a screenshot taken at 1:1 proportions with the original image (as is the case with anything on the web) effectively includes an exact copy of the original image in the screenshot. It can't be used to get around anything. --] 23:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you list the images in question? Such template specifically states | |||
| * for identification of and '''<font color=crimson>critical commentary on the software</font>''' in question | |||
| * on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, | |||
| :Therefore, it cannot be used for circumventing copyright laws and display content . After all, he's not commenting on the browser (the software) -- <small> ]</small> 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Moving an article marked for deletion == | |||
| Hi. Question here. | |||
| Five days ago, I marked ] for deletion (the AfD discussion can be found ]). Since the discussion has began, the article has been moved twice - first to ], then to ]. I'm going to ask; is moving an article that's marked for deletion allowed? –] <font size="1"> <nowiki>] | ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></font> 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Absolutely not. It can be seen as vandalism, in fact, if it's done as an attempt to evade the deletion. If the consensus of the AfD was "change to ," then that should be performed at the end of the AfD, by the closer. Anyone doing anything prior to that should indicate on the AfD that it's being contemplated, then that it's done. ] 01:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **As long as the deletion discussion is moved too, I don't see what the problem is. Unless, of course, none of the participants are aware of the move and get confused trying to find the discussion.--]] 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***If it wasn't wrong, I have moved the article back to the original name. ] 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The problem with moves during AfD is that it evades the closing decision, and this is particularly true if there is a double move, as the closer finds a redirect to a redirect, and it's even possible that the first redirect will have been deleted as a double redirect. My point is that AfD is a sort of freeze frame, unless we know in advance. Trust me: it can be very bad mojo. ] 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Squeakbox and Hagiographer (again), review please == | |||
| I need some help with a situation at ] and beyond. {{user|Hagiographer}} posted a complaint about Squeakbox evading a one-month block. However this "block evasion" was editing his own talk page, which is permitted. I find in reviewing the case that on August 18, Hagiographer altered Squeakbox's to that of a user he suspected of being Squeakbox's sock puppet. | |||
| There is also a complaint that Hagiographer included a personal attack in this notice filed on an article about Squeakbox's grandfather, which I agree is a significantly abusive attempt to troll against a blocked user. However, the prod was removed and the complaint filed by two new users, {{user|Relator}} and {{user|Mister Shower}}, who I suspect are Squeakbox sock puppets. Since the socks have not edited articles other than to respond to Hagiographer's trolling, I recommend blocking them but not extending Squeakbox's ban, currently set to end Sept 22. I also recommend a significant block for Hagiographer for trolling, at least a week and possibly as long as 18 days, to end when Squeakbox's block ends. Hagiographer should not be allowed to take advantage of Squeakbox's block by trolling him in this way. Comments please. (Also I can't throw the blocks myself). ] 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns: | |||
| :I endorse the summary & actions. Hagiographer's recent seem to focus of taunting SB and "admin-shopping" - spamming admins in alphabetical order with the hope of achieving his desired outcome. ] 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''1. Misapplication of Policy''': | |||
| === Hagiographer's defense === | |||
| Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ]. | |||
| * You claim I've changed SqueakBox's signature. Well, he changed a post of mine in the arbitration enforcement page. The rules in the top of that page state clearly that the header of any complaint must be the name of the user you're complaining about. If I was complaining about SqueakBox, what was the meaning of changing the header to "SqueakBox and Zapatancas"? Nobody did anything at the time. '''''' he redirected to his user page ] and removed any evidence that a sock puppetry accusation (started by me) had been posted. Nobody took any action. Did anybody warn SqueakBox at the time? SqueakBox was blocked on August 24 because he had accessed the Misplaced Pages during his first month ban as ]. Skanking was blocked on July 26. That is, it took a month to enforce a simple ban! Well, I changed the signature of SqueakBox to other signature of him (because Pura Paja is SqueakBox). Did you really want me to believe in those circunstances that changing SqueakBox's signature to that of his sock puppet when he was trying to deceive honest, neutral users making them believe Pura Paja was simply another Wikipedian and not a sock puppet of him repeating his typical vandalism was so serious? Nobody was enforcing the simplest decisions although I was getting tired of asking them to be enforced () and nobody was answering me! SqueakBox had changed my edits blatantly and nobody had done anything!!! And you want to punish me for that now, when I had already been punished by being placed under POV parole and being banned from editing Zapatero's articles although I've simply removed vandalism from them? I believe that in the ] can be read that the same person cannot be put in risk of limb twice for the same offense (or something like that). Does that not apply in the Misplaced Pages? | |||
| * ] has exposed here "his opinion" without recognizing that he has had some clashes with me. Is that the behavior recommended for administrators? This administrator has been harassing me of late. he posted in my talk page that I'm obssesed with other editor (SqueakBox), that I like picking fights with other people. If those aren't personal attacks tell me what they are. I tell him that SqueakBox was accessing the Misplaced Pages from an IP although he is blocked (that IP has already been blocked fortunately ) and he showed no interest at all. In SqueakBox's user page '''there is an insult against me''': "My greatest achievements here have been and restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints." Hagiographer means writing about saints. It's clear that's a personal attack. SqueakBox has been blocked for that!, see his . Guettarda so that insult that I don't know what it has to be tolerated couldn't be marked as what it is. I marked it as a personal attack , as I didn't feel I had a right to remove something to which I was directly involved, and that even though ] states that, although isn't considered an official policy, removing personal attacks is common and even welcome. | |||
| * Guettarda and SqueakBox have been involved in the past in harassment campaigns against other users. In ] can be found a barnstar given by Guettarda when he congratulates SqueakBox for expelling other users (whom he insults calling them strange) from ]. Although he cannot be neutral as a consquence he has had no qualms in persecuting me, a honest wikipedian who only asked not to be insulted. | |||
| * Guettarda is accusing me unfairly of "admin-shopping" "spamming admins in alphabetical order with the hope of achieving desired outcome". I simply '''want''' that insult to be removed. I've tried to unprotect the page. That request was denied. I understood that the reason was: "Only you know you're being insulted so no need to take any action". That was what I understood at least. So I tried to look for a second opinion, as the first didn't convince me. I've not written ]. It's there where personal attacks are banned. SqueakBox has been banned for that insult. What's the use of banning the person and keeping the insult? I'd rather prefer it the other way around. Is that such a crime? I'm from Spain so, it seems most administrators are sleeping when I access the Misplaced Pages, if I ask several of them the answer is expected to be faster and the problem can be solved sooner. And well, when SqueakBox created Skanking it was pretty clear he had to be blocked. It took a month! If believing that finding an administrator with time enough to analyze a situation in depth with that precedent is a crime, ok, I'm a criminal. I've posted tons of messages complaining for SqueakBox's insults and breaches of his ban and most of them have simply been ignored. This time, I've simply asked the administrator community for help. Is that an attack so terribly against the Misplaced Pages? That is, SqueakBox insults me. Guettarda enforces that insult and start harassing and insulting me. I post a message to ten administrators of whom, probably, at least seven are sleeping at the time so, probably, the problem will be solved before they even log in. The final deduction is: Hagiographer is a troll. And it would be solved if an administrator would haven't decided it was "spam" thus breaking ] | |||
| *In regard to the proposal for deletion, as far as I know I've followed the process. At the time I didn't know a Vfd had already taken place. In fact, that proves it's not so strange to believe that article had to be deleted. You claim I'm trolling against a user (?) As far as I know, articles don't belong to any user (see ]). And, certainly, the best argument to delete an article is that only a user in all the Misplaced Pages (the grandson of the subject!) is interested in it. So, from a logical point of view there are only two options taking into account ]: | |||
| :#Several users find the article interesting. Then, why am I trolling against only one? I would be trolling against all of them. | |||
| :#Only one user is interested in the article. Then, how can be considered to ask an article to be deleted when only the granson is interested in it so unreasonable? | |||
| :How can I troll against a blocked user in this case? I know nobody will answer. | |||
| * Could somebody explain to me where are those so terrible attacks in the prod notice. Give me an example of other encyclopedia where there is an article about Roberto Weiss (that's one of those attacks, isn't it?)? Is it such a crime to believe that an article has been created by the grandson of its subject because only the grandson is interested in it. Is that worse than comment by SqueakBox in which he says that: I've chased off legitimate users (his sock puppet Skanking) with "false accusations" o that I don't know what integrity (or honradez in Spanish) means? Nobody cares about that. Of course, posting something like that is not the same that asking an administrator (well, several) for help. is other intersting edit in which SqueakBox says to ] that he's nothing but a kid, that there is no interest in what he says, that he has to grow up a bit and so on. Nobody cares, but of course posting something like that has nothing to do with following strictly the proposed for deletion process. By the way, when the Pura Paja sock puppetry case was started, Kilo Lima warned that he wasn't going to examine that case as he had a conflict with SqueakBox. That proves he deserved the insults. User Guettarda, in a similar situation, would have acted "differently". | |||
| '''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''': | |||
| So, as a conclusion: | |||
| 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. | |||
| #SqueakBox page will continue to be filled with insults against me. I deserve it. Who I believe I am to ask an administrator (well, several) to remove a personal attack against me? | |||
| #The proposed for deletion issue could've been solved easily: a message in my talk page stating that an AfD had already been rejected. Of course, it's better to ignore ] and claim that I wanted to troll a blocked user because, taking into account ], biographies belong only to grandsons. In the prod notice is also stated that "If you created the article, please don't take offense." That implies, evidently, that following the prod process is a direct attack that cannot be tolerated. If mustn' be forgotten that SqueakBox hasn't asked a user page not to be used as a platform to attack him, the worst crime that can be imagined, so some privileges must be recognized. | |||
| #SqueakBox can change other user's comments but if a newbie, after seeing how his comments are removed or changed, after being ignored when he asked several times an arbcom decision to be enforced, after being ignored when he reported personal attacks decides to answer in kind tired of the lawlessness he perceives everywhere then he must be punished once and, two weeks later, threatened and probably punished. Well, I supposed that if instead of combating SqueakBox's vandalism and trusting the administrators I would have become a minion in some administrator's campaigns of harassment then I would have had no problem at all. Perhaps, the Misplaced Pages is about that. | |||
| #I'm going to be banned for 17 days, until SqueakBox ends his ban. ] states that SqueakBox, and Zapatancas, can be blocked at most for one week for editing Zapatero's related articles or breaking their parole and the same conditions apply to me. As far as I know, I haven't any precedent against me but, well, I will not be blocked for five days, as a warn, but for 17 days. Weeks are different over here. Maybe as claiming I'm attacked anybody is so dubious the punishment must be increased. It's pure logic. I've placed this at the bottom. Nobody is going to read this so when I will be blocked for 17 days this will be a good proof of what are the values dominant here. | |||
| '''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''': | |||
| I don't know why I've spent any time writing this. I know you're going to pay no attention to it. Every decision that has to be taken has already been taken. Well, it's clear you're having the time of your lifes in the Misplaced Pages!!! ] 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.] | |||
| *I don't think you should be able to take advantage of Squeakbox's block to bait him. You could have placed the prod without personal references; you could even have waited until 9/22 knowing that it was an article that was important to Squeakbox. Regarding the other issues, there hasn't been a lot of attention paid to Arb Enforcement; I may start hanging out there more often but I'm not going back 2 months. Banning you from Zapatero was supposed to stop you from getting on each other's backs but all it has done was move the disruption around. Both of you need to cool off and quit it. As far as the block is concerned, I'm not an admin (yet) and Guettarda hasn't actually blocked you (which is proper if you two have had a dispute), so unless some other admins take an interest, you may get away with baiting Squeakbox this time as well. ] 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Evidence''': | |||
| ==Disruption continues at ]== | |||
| Yes. I hate bring it to you but it's disrupting the poll, and the remnants of any goodwill that was ever to be found at highways. Everyone is being pitted at each other again. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe keep this threaded with the upper stuff??? ... but I have gotten quite harsh over there, and we have an apparently newish participant who is not happy that I am telling him and everyone else that digging in their heels will get them blocks. In direct contravention of how we normally do things around here... I'm going gonzo and I don't like it but see no other choice ++]: ]/] 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think I am too. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Leave the going gonzo to me. As an editor that edits in this area you probably ought not to take any admin actions at all, but get uninvolved admins to do it instead. I think a compromise is going to get worked out. ++]: ]/] 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I thought by going gonzo you meant going crazy :) Ah, oh well. Highways is a surprisingly controversial area. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Constant reverting of valid material on ] == | |||
| The following user () has been continually reverting a specific external link to a website which clearly has more relevance than other sites listed. This user has no other contributions to their name other than this and has even attempted to secretly remove the site under teh guise of performing a different function. Several Users (], ] and myself) have attempted to tell this person to but they keep coming in, claiming this site is spam and removing it. | |||
| Could an admin please take a look at this and let this user know that they are causing a disruption and wasting everyones time by doing this. Thanks ] 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Hilary Duff article == | |||
| I was just passing by the ] article and it seems that it is completely trashed. This is not the first time I have seen it vandalized. Just thought I would let you know... | |||
| ] 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)mappychris | |||
| : If you can spot the mistake(s)s and fix it/them all yourself, that would be ideal. If possible, you could ] to the last vandalism-free version. If it seems that the vandalism is persistent and from a single source, then it might be best to report it at ]. Cheers. --]]]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action''': | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification. | |||
| *{{vandal|Owwmykneecap}}. This user seems to have a grudge against me for attempting to get the article ] deleted way back when, and has insisted on leaving disruptive messages on my talk page. I at first left him a mildly hostile message, which I probably shouldn't have done, but since then I've basically ignored the messages and left NPA templates on his page. The messages haven't stopped. Should something be done, or should I just keep ignoring him? 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration. | |||
| Appears to be using an Open Proxy. ] 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Blocked. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Does anyone need to do anything about a checkuser or something to spy out the IP they were using at the time? ] 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's your call, but if you think it is a good idea, go with it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] is the place to list such things. (I've listed this there now) --] 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was already done by ] and blocking done by ]. I will note the position for future reference though. ] 06:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Although this user is still editing freely on Misplaced Pages (hence voiding the only reason that he/she is allowed to do the actions I'm bringing to your attention - the right to leave), {{user2|Giano}} insists on having his/her user page blank, without even a link to the archives which contain numerous warnings. Thoughts? See for the last diff before the blanking occured. The message on the page states ''"Please keep this sheet clean per the user's wishes."'' Cheers, <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Lots of users have had their talk pages blanked or deleted after leaving Misplaced Pages or simply because they want a fresh start. As far as I can tell, there are no major warnings that the community would need to have prominently displayed (also, the history is still intact, so one can easily click a previous version to see all the messages). ]] 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed. | |||
| ::It's all still there in the edit history, isn't it? --] 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ----Best Regards | |||
| :::Yep ]] 07:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But a lot of blocking admins won't check the history to see if a user's block should be extended because of prior misdemeanours. Also, he/she claims to want to keep it blank, but all users must respond to comments on their talk page before deleting them, and the current attitude expressed by the sentence on the page indicates that all comments will be reverted without response. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 07:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Giano's an editor in good standing. He can have a blank user or talk page if that's his preference. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Everyone can always look at the block logs.--] 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Please have no concern my block log is still very complete and present. You may remember it Carnildo? ] | ] 07:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since he/she has reinstated his/her talk page, numerous other issues have developed. Any administrator opinion or action into either is welcome. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"All users must respond to comments on their talk page before deleting them"? What flap-doodle of a rule is this? And here I've been telling people all over this noticeboard for months that they shouldn't interfere with what people like to do on their userpages. It seems I did not know about this rule, I'm sure I've broken it plenty of times, please block me. Incidentally if the formulation of the sentence previously on Giano's page, bothers you, you might care to check the history to see who wrote it. Hint: it wasn't Giano, it was me. (And not on request.) My administrator opinion is the same advice I've given to many users who get their knickers in a twist on this page about having their stupid warning templates removed from somebody else's page: please do yourself a favour and stop compulsively checking Giano's page. ] | ] 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::I think I have every right to look at every page I feel like on Misplaced Pages. That's why it's ''"a free encyclopaedia"''. So, would you care to change the statement at the top of Giano's talk page to conform with Misplaced Pages guidelines, or are you going to continue to treat policy with contempt as you did in the post above? I really don't want to have it forcibly changed, but that's the next step. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I think the next step is more likely to be a nice long block, if you carry on harassing Giano. Go away and do something constructive. --] (]) 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Nothing to say about me really bot == | |||
| ::::::::Aha, I don't think so. What for? I'm not allowed to request a user remove a personal attack about me from their subpage, in accordance with ]? I could have been irrational and removed it myself, but instead I tried to be courteous to the user, fix the problems that seemed to have occured, and then ask in a civil manner for the PA to be removed. And how can I be harrasing Giano when he hasn't been at all online? Gee, don't simply read the dispute on face value... <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}} | |||
| :::::::::You don't think so? Try me. If you consider that Giano's saying on a ] that you accused him of instigating edit wars (a true statement, on any reasonable interpretation of ) is a "personal attack", you are being far too sensitive. No more. Go and edit an article. --] (]) 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::::::::Ironic, maybe you should too - I have created 112 articles since August 7, and you have created 4 for the same time period. If you notice the diff, I changed my template, as Wikipedians are human, and we do make mistakes. His comment that "Well at least he has a new accusation" is out of line, and your comment attacking my sensitivity is too. "Comment on the contributions, and not on the contributor". All I want is my name removed from the hate-list, and I'd go away. So far, it seems that all everyone wants to do is defend Giano with a giant shield. It's one simple request, which, if people didn't jump in, could have been dealt with between the two users in a civil fashion. The fact that I will probably be blocked unjustly for this (I envisage a nasty RfC) is testimant to the fact that if Giano and I were left alone to discuss this between ourselves, this would all be fine. I can live with the thing at the top of the page, barely, but I want my name removed from the list. That is all. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| :It seems that . That is good news indeed. Hopefully everyone will now leave myself and Giano alone to work out a comprimise regarding the other issue of his Archive6. Can I assume that this is case closed regarding this issue's development on ]? <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 12:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| ::You're the one who opened it in the first place remember. My advice to you is to stay away from Giano for a few days at least. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| :::So Giano is one of those editors that gets a free pass because of contributions, then? I think perhaps we need to develop a list of who those folks are, so admins know not to waste their time trying to enforce the behavioural standards that apply to everyone else. ++]: ]/] 12:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies. | |||
| ::::There aren't any behavioral issues that I can see; it seems to have been drummed up out of nothing. Best to let it drop. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| :::::Is that a general statement that Giano has no behavioural issues? See, for example: (subsequently reverted as incivil) and then also please consider if it's really appropriate to declare on his talk page that admins who don't meet his requirements may be treated rudely. Isn't that failure to assume good faith? That statement was removed by another admin as being pretty incivil, I'd note. Remember also that Giano just got done with a rather long incident. Or is it more of a statement that you didn't see these issues and weren't aware of them? Or that you don't consider them behavioural issues at all? As for "best to let it drop"... if there actually ARE issues but you want it dropped anyway, doesn't that pretty much validate the notion that Giano is in that protected "free pass" class I refer to? I'm not in that class. I can be perfectly civil during a long rant exchange (in which I'm called "naiive", "incompetent", "fool", "stupid", and "devious" without ever responding in kind) with someone apparently in that class, even getting a civility barnstar from one observer, and yet still get taken to task over how things went. That's fine, I'm OK with it, I just want to know if you think such a class exists, or should exist. ++]: ]/] 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| ::::::I see from a thread above this that you're annoyed about another user, but that has nothing to do with Giano. As I said, this is something of nothing. In general, we do give more leeway to good editors, of course, because this is an encyclopedia, and what we should care about is good editing above almost anything else. That doesn't mean people get free passes though. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I'm also not sure I'd characterise my concern about anyone's actions as 'annoyance". Merely concern. After all, getting annoyed is counterproductive. I'd still like your perspective on whether you think Giano is completely civil or not, because I am interested in it. I think I gave specific examples, so having you comment on those specifics might be useful instead of just saying it's "something of nothing". I'm glad you agree that people ought not to get free passes, but I am concerned that some seem to, just the same. ++]: ]/] 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions. | |||
| :::::::(edit conflict) I fully stand with SlimVirgin; it appears that Bryant is trying to make a mountain out of nothing. I find considerably irritating that all this rumour is being made for one of our best editors; in my experience, I've never seen all this devotion with trolls, that often happily remove the warnings on their pages without any intervention. Instead, one of our best editors is being harassed, while so valuable assets for the project should deserve instead some leniency. As for Lar, I understand your anger, as Giano passed the line with you; but he had been badly wronged by Carnildo. Only, please remember this: editors like Giano can't be easily replaced, differently from most.--] 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| (outdent) Aldux: we've now had two different admins remove the same phrasing from Giano's page that Daniel raised as an issue. Go look at the history and see for yourself. So clearly there's ''something'' to Daniel's allegations at least in the minds of some administrators. Should Daniel take it personally and work this so hard? Perhaps not. Establish that this is one more incident in a pattern of incivility and let it go, would be my advice. But when you say "As for Lar, I understand your anger", I don't think you do, because I'm ''not'' angry. Anger is counterproductive. I'm just ''concerned'', not angry. And my concern is twofold: first that one wrong doesn't justify another. Which is a principle others are taking me to task for elsewhere as well, rightly or wrongly. I embrace the principle and so should others. and secondly, I see in your words that very "free pass" mentality I am concerned about in the larger case. Some allowance for contributions is appropriate, but no one is indispensable. ++]: ]/] 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem with the "no one is indispensible" position, even though it's true, is that it translates into a lack of appreciation of good editors. We have very few really good editors, and we need to hang onto them and show them they're valued. That's all that's meant by giving them a bit of leeway. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:16, 5 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::But this cuts both ways (or even three). Fostering an atmosphere in which someone who is proclaimed by his pals as a "good editor" can be rude to anyone he deems to be "not a good editor" is not helpful. Would you be happy if you were to arrive at someone's talk-page and discover a notice saying you weren't welcome to edit there? This is not even considering the criteria that are being used to judge "goodness", which are inherently subjective and likely to differ wildly from person to person. HTH HAND —] | ] 15:25, 5 September 2006 (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) | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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 not sure if this is the appropriate venue for this but i'm looking for a third party to help settle a dispute. Although this dispute is occuring specifically on the David Jeremiah article i'm more concerned for future use of adding sources to an article, not just this particular article. The dispute can be found on the AfD and also in the discussion section of the David Jeremiah article. Thanks for your time. ] 07:58, 5 September 2006 (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. | |||
| :More specifically, this user is upset I reverted several links that went to Amazon.com from a list of books in a bibliography. I even explained why I did it on his talk, but he assumed bad faith and posted negative things about me. I recommended he came here to settle it.] 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| ::This isn't the right place for this. Admins don't settle content disputes. See ], you might try an ] on the article. --] 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article. | |||
| The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'': | |||
| :: What have I written that is negative? I am not upset that you reverted the links, i'm frustrated over having done the work to satisfy your complaint only to have you delete it.] 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}} | |||
| This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
| Just as a note we don't typically link to Amazon.com (or any specific commercial source) except in extremely extenuating circumstances, which I don't think ever include bibliographies. If it's a book being cited, use the{{tl|ISBN}} template if you know the ISBN, that links to lots of commercial source and the reader can choose as they like. Hope that helps. Please don't take reversion personally. Further dispute resolution should be pursued in the appropriate channels, as Doc says. ++]: ]/] 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.() | |||
| ==User:205.157.110.11== | |||
| {{User|205.157.110.11}}Anon. IP is harassing an AfD and myself. ] 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Declined:''' 205.157.110.11 is a (rare) respected anonymous contributor and has a right to participate in AFDs. Continued removal of his comments will result in blocks for <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on your part. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Buh? The '''anon''' is removing comments -- or does HE get a pass on that? --] | ] 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The anon in question seems to be removing the strike outs over it's own edits, calling that removal of material is a stretch--] 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}} | |||
| == Viceroy seeds == | |||
| 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'' | |||
| Can I please speedy delete ] and ] and infinitely block the author? The articles are the most blatant case of spam on Misplaced Pages I've seen in several weeks. And what they are advertising is probably illegal too. ] | ] 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.'' | |||
| == Economy of Paris == | |||
| 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. | |||
| This page (], <small><span class=plainlinks></span></small>) has been the subject of a 7 month edit war, mainly between anons. The page has been on my watchlist since I mistook an edit as vandalism and since then I've requested its protection twice due to the edit war. No discussion is taking place on the talk page, and as soon as protection is lifted the anons start reverting each other again. Recently registered users have been getting involved, and now someone's raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, so I'm bringing it here. -- ] 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''. | |||
| == Joseandricardo == | |||
| 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 ]'' | |||
| {{vandal|Joseandricardo}} has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of {{vandal|Science3456}}. I still think this is incorrect. He should (obviously) be considered the same as {{vandal|Jose and Ricardo}}, and possibly blocked as having produced no useful edits and being argumentitive in matters of creating useless redirects and disambig pages in place of redirects, but I don't think he's the same blocked user. — ] | ] 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even . | |||
| == Ghirlandajo == | |||
| 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) | |||
| For quite some time I've noticed ]. While he is normally a beneficial contributor to articles and works hard to maintain high quality articles, I've consistently seen ] and ] coming from him. I recently went through his contributions from the past few days and came up with these edits. | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Extremely Annoying situation == | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship|oldid=73945291|title=WT:RFA}} — | |||
| {{atop | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=User talk:Giano|oldid=73910980}} — | |||
| | result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=User talk:Giano|oldid=73948682}} — | |||
| }} | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=User talk:Kylu|oldid=73753759}} — | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=User talk:Bunchofgrapes|oldid=73752411}} — | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship|oldid=73911325|title=WT:RFA}} — | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship|oldid=73910385|title=WT:RFA}} — | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship|oldid=73909969|title=WT:RFA}} — | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=User talk:Giano|oldid=73946828}} — | |||
| {{wp-diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3|oldid=73435883|title=WP:RFA/Carnildo 3}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| I have been involved with Ghirlandajo in the past so I'd rather not block him myself, but I'm wondering what other administrator's opinions are about whether something should be done or not about Ghirlandajo's behavior. Should more evidence appear, an arbcom case may be in order, as well. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions. | |||
| : I've asked him to tone it down . --] 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*He has only passed his opinions. you may not like them, but they are not obscene and some people may say to the point. There is no case in Wiki-law to either block him or take him to the arb-com. ] | ] 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocking him for these comments would be a supremely bad idea. Especially in cases that are so (sigh) controversial, we should let people express disagreement, ''or even disgust'', with how things are being done. There's a difference between personal attacks and strongly-worded critcism. That said, asking him to tone is down is surely reasonable- I just hope nobody actually blocks over this. ] ] 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Given the circumstances, I consider that his reaction is a bit strong, but entirely stays within reasonable boundaries. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| : His response to my request to tone it down was defiant and inflammatory . Three hours to cool down. | |||
| ] ] | |||
| : 15:32, 5 September 2006 {{admin|Tony Sidaway}} blocked {{user5|Ghirlandajo}} with an expiry time of 3 hours (Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility) --] 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough. | |||
| == POV and incorrect assertions == | |||
| ] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hopefully I am reporting this to the right place. In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/Pocket_PC I have continued to revert the bits of Igor Sotelo's contributions that are POV or are incorrect assertions, but he continues to revert my corrections. We have discussed on the talk page in length but cannot come to concensus. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thankyou for your time. ] 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
Latest revision as of 02:02, 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 | |||||||||
Globallycz
This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Misplaced Pages for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. Globallycz (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again.
- i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. Globallycz (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. Meters (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
You have both broken WP:3RR
- Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)- Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. Globallycz (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the only person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as
lazy
is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. Globallycz (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Globallycz, nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which are policies (in fact, one of the five pillars), and not some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. NewBorders (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly.
- Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily.
- Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. Globallycz (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you.
- Though if you choose not to hear it and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. NewBorders (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that you also got off too lightly.
- Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. WP:DROPTHESTICK before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. Meters (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. Globallycz (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the contributions of 122.11.212.156 and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and all of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.I also looked at the edits to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. CodeTalker (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not being reasonable and fair
- (1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names.
- (2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too.
- 1. WP Osmanthus fragrans:
- Date: Jul 2022
- Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits
- 2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
- Date: 1 Nov 2021
- Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references
- 3. WP Wunmi Mosaku
- Date: 17 Sep 2021
- Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date
- In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof.
- I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too.
- He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. Globallycz (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. Globallycz (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. Globallycz (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the contributions of 122.11.212.156 and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and all of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.I also looked at the edits to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. CodeTalker (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. Globallycz (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Globallycz, nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which are policies (in fact, one of the five pillars), and not some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. NewBorders (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. Globallycz (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the only person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as
- I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a WP:PA seems to suggest an incompatibility with a collaborative project. On their talk page, they state:
Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution
. They double down:For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route.
Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a WP:POINT in this edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state:I am highlighting a problem here
If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. Globallycz (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 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)
User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm
Indefed until communication improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, I recently came across the edits of Vazulvonal of Stockholm, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Misplaced Pages (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being alerted and warned many times. Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at Schüssler, some Swedish IP Addresses and himself, have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article , which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., Geni), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., ), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., ). At List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me anti-semitic and anti-Hungarian. At List of Hungarian Academy Award winners and nominees, some Swedish IP Addresses (which are very likely related to the user), have created this very odd section of very poor quality and original research. Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Misplaced Pages, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time (diff diff). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (Tünde Fülöp), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 diff) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 diff). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The excessive additions to List of Nobel laureates by country and List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on Talk:List of Hungarian Nobel laureates but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors.
- Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC).
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus
There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
- As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
- On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
- Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
- Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73:
"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
- Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
- The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
- This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
- This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
- I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
<--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
- And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
- So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
- The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
- If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
- Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
- Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
- At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to
WP:Don't be a dick(looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
- And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
- Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
- Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
- Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for closure
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages,
{{under discussion inline}}is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
- Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander
Right, we're done here. Stan1900 (talk · contribs) is indef blocked for WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ban below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind "ban" is often used when "block" is meant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages.
user:Stan1900 is a WP:SPA dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with . The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films.
Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation).
The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example , and .
COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer.
The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations.
The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including Cullen328 and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander.
I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. WP:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some further background here…
- The user has claimed that
My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander
. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here . Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits. - The user has also claimed:
I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Misplaced Pages
. - However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here ), the user claims to have
been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics
, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018. - The user states here that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for
fact verification
, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per WP:DUCK. - The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above.
- So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. Axad12 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations:
- 1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Misplaced Pages should be evaluated on those merits.
- 2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified.
- 3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Misplaced Pages venues:
- - Talk pages for content discussion
- - Help desk for process guidance
- - NPOV board for neutrality issues
- - Each serves a distinct purpose
- 4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Misplaced Pages contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles.
- 5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification.
- The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At the end of the day this is all very simple...
- Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added.
- Also, articles on Misplaced Pages do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional).
- You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you.
- The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support.
- Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. Axad12 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume in good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as this one, there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's .
- I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume in good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Misplaced Pages's purpose:
- 1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources.
- 2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage.
- 3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions.
- 4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning.
- 5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes.
- The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns.
- I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. Stan1900 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent:
- The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive.
- The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading.
- I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration.
- Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule.
- WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate.
- A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies.
- If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here.
- Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. Stan1900 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The user is now claiming over at COIN that
Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI
. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. Axad12 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in
fact verification
with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being anauthorized representative
. Axad12 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in
- The user is now claiming over at COIN that
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the bludgeoning denials. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Misplaced Pages channels to ensure images were correctly licensed.
- 2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV.
- 3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Misplaced Pages editor might verify facts with a primary source.
- 4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that:
- - All content is properly sourced from independent publications
- - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure
- - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes
- - No promotional content has been demonstrated
- I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. Stan1900 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900
You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages
. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and repeatedly denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been repeatedly deceptive. Accordingly, I now Support an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations:
- 1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Misplaced Pages process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated.
- 2. Every single piece of content I've contributed:
- - Is based on independent, reliable sources
- - Follows NPOV guidelines
- - Has been properly cited
- - Includes balanced coverage
- - Has been verified through proper channels
- 3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Misplaced Pages. The evidence is clear:
- - Images reinstated through proper process
- - Paid editing tags removed after review
- - Content properly sourced
- - Constructive engagement documented
- The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Misplaced Pages's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions.
- I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. Stan1900 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons still falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Misplaced Pages licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious.
- 2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite:
- - Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels
- - Confirmation by administrators
- - Clear documentation of my limited representative role
- - Proper sourcing of all content
- The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Misplaced Pages processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages.
- I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. Stan1900 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time:
- The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement.
- To spell it out yet again:
- - Not the creator
- - Not the copyright holder
- - Authorized for licensing verification only
- - Images officially verified
- - Reinstatement confirmed
- Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Misplaced Pages. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! Stan1900 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. Axad12 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims.
- The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. Stan1900 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, correct that false claim that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. Stan1900 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, correct that false claim that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. Axad12 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but only for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons still falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory:
- Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander.
- You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative.
- You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews).
- You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release).
- You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional.
- That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional.
- However, if we look beyond all that, the continual WP:BLUDGEONING of multiple threads, the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Axad12 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Misplaced Pages has in place for this.
- Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access.
- Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Misplaced Pages is for.
- Your continued attempts to paint standard Misplaced Pages processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. Stan1900 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Misplaced Pages's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process.
- Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years?
- I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. Stan1900 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban.
- I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred.
- My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Misplaced Pages. All of my work on Misplaced Pages for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point.
- I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked.
- For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. Axad12 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, re:
want everyone to see contributions and the articles 've edited
... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). Axad12 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Axad12 CoffeeCrumbs
- 1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination.
- 2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed.
- 3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Misplaced Pages channels. This matter is resolved.
- 4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T:
- - Using talk pages
- - Providing reliable sources
- - Following dispute resolution
- - Getting official review of tags
- - Verifying image licensing
- - Addressing repetitious concerns transparently
- 5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions.
- 6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Misplaced Pages presence is, frankly, pathetic.
- All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. Stan1900 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels:
- 1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on)
- 2. Image licensing - verified through VRT
- 3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process
- I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence.
- Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. Stan1900 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, how have the issues in this thread
been officially resolved through proper channels
? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet beenofficially resolved
by any definition of the term. Axad12 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review
- The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification
- The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved
- These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Misplaced Pages channels. See:
- - VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
- - Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration
- Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes.
- If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. Stan1900 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it
misleading
that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading:
- 1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct
- 2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect:
- - See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
- - See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements
- 3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Misplaced Pages through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. Stan1900 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it
- Sorry, how have the issues in this thread
- Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to WP:AGF that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record:
- I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage:
- - Used talk pages consistently
- - Responded to concerns promptly
- - Had tags officially reviewed and removed
- - Had images verified through VRT
- - Resolved authorized agent status
- - Made improvements based on constructive feedback
- 2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy.
- 3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels.
- I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so.
- The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Stan1900 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeCrumbs Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s?
- The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them.
- Misplaced Pages's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker.
- The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved.
- Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of.
- Misplaced Pages is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. Stan1900 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence?
- Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Misplaced Pages coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work.
- At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Stan1900 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, re:
Support T-ban at leastthe continued WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BATTLEGROUND MENTALITY per the above bludgeoning by said user. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed:
- 1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING"
- 2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND"
- 3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning"
- Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. Stan1900 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to Support an indef it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence?
- I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me.
- Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. Stan1900 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of any COI, the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to:
- understand such basic site policies as WP:CONSENSUS;
- admit wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid in any way;
- take any sort of feedback on board, with Cullen328 only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after 4 long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages);
- avoid hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view;
- leads me to, unfortunately, also support an indef ban, at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also properly responding to other editors' concerns, while listening to what they're actually saying.
- To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. NewBorders (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts:
- 1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution"
- This completely misrepresents what occurred:
- - The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes
- - They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity
- - When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately
- - The record clearly shows this timeline
- 2. Re: "inability to take feedback"
- The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes:
- - Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly
- - Article refinements based on additional verified sources
- - Format changes adopted when specifically requested
- - Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements)
- 3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS"
- - I fully understand and respect consensus processes
- - Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion
- - I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels
- 4. Re: "hammering viewpoint"
- What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been:
- - Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.)
- - Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations
- - Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven
- - Protecting properly sourced content from removal
- - Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads
- 5. Re: "not being collegial"
- The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while:
- - Following every proper procedure
- - Implementing requested changes when actually specified
- - Using appropriate Misplaced Pages venues
- - Facing repeated unfounded allegations
- Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. Stan1900 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to Support an indef it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger Schazjmd Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse.
- After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters.
- The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. Stan1900 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? EEng 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support CBAN of this bludgeoning WP:SPA. They are a clear WP:TIMESINK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages . EEng 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations…
- Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time.
- Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view.
- Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here .
- And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement . Axad12 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Gender-related arbitration issue?
Removed from editing (indef'd). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Masquewand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "gender" from Sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First 02:48, 20 Dec 24 which I reverted then on 04:12, 20 Dec 24. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. Adakiko (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment makes me think WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The whole of that user talk page is a study in WP:IDHT. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! Ravenswing 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Take note of this comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? 2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F (talk) 05:07, 21 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)
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)
Excessive range block
IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. Complaining IP-using sockmaster is blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue.
- Secondly, this should probably be at WP:AN, or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well with no apparent issue. – 2804:F1...74:E386 (::/32) (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. 174.243.177.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has any "rights" to edit this website. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. 174.243.177.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think.
- Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why Widr blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks here and here. Widr (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks here and here. Widr (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like edit filter manager. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is in the United States, not India. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Usernamekiran was referring to their own experience mentioned in their first comment rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment.
- Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is, or perhaps was the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Usernamekiran was referring to their own experience mentioned in their first comment rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is in the United States, not India. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 21 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)
there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq
Content dispute. Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect.
https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978 https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/ https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman7373 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Freeman7373. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The CIA World Factbook is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the United States Institute of Peace which is also cited. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below
- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
- https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs
- Shame on your reliable source 2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quora isn't reliable, and please be civil. EF 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent
MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent (talk · contribs) has been warned by several users about their improper short descriptions but has not changed their behavior. It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. Remsense ‥ 论 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they just committed to stopping. I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329
Blocked the /64 for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. Kline • talk • contribs 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be purely an AIV issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. Synorem (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:17, 21 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
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)
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)
- 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)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
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.
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. Category: