Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:46, 26 October 2006 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits manual archive while Werdnabot is in the shop← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 December 2024 edit undoThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Administrators156,577 edits →Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192: closing 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{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
|algo = old(72h)
|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-->
== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==


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 .
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive142--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->


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


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


I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to know if vote spamming in ]s is permissible, as was done by various (also anonymous) users in ]. All anon users seem to have been blocked. However, there is one registered user, ], who hasn't. He is a Turkish user, who right before initiating his spamming, decided to become incognito by moving the Turkish flag from his userpage () to a subpage (). He later posted several vote-bullying messages that request users (in Turkish) to vote '''Strong oppose''', as seen in the following diffs: (,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,) There are many more (check ]). ] 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:Mustafa's spamming should be rollbacked and the guy blocked for disruption. This is the worst thing that may happen on RfA: the nomination may be derailed for good. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::IMO, it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls. And yes, the spamming should be rollbacked to set an example, and its author blocked.--] 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Can someone translate the turkish comments in some of these posts? ] 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
*Here is my point of view and replies;
:Here is first alert message for about campaign is not allowed ;] from ]
::Here is ,] to that admin.
:::I stopped to send any message to any user anymore. see my ]. I will check the rules more detailed. It seems some complexs, to make a campaign in the vote in any country obviously free, but not in wiki. I will learn and discuss the rules asap.
:I will send some messages to some admins about my alleges before; ],
],
]
This my oppinions is not new..
:Flag about in my page. It is a comic idea, to change flag.Why flag is distruptive for my alleges. My alleges not belong today(as you see above) and flag was there in all times.
::Here the reality about flag; Old version was animated one that ] had complained about copyvivo to an admin ], I took an alert from that admin ] and I send my first response ] and ]
:::Now I transferred ( not delete!!)flag to my sadbox to replace a new pure-self made animated flag.
::That is the reality.
Regards to all.
Note; I can help for translations on my messages.
<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">]</font>] 14:28, 19 October 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)
:I'm rolling back the spamming now. This type of behaviour is ''never'' acceptable. I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block up to others; a stern warning may suffice depending on the translation of the comments. ](]) 14:29, 19 October 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)
::Looks like ] beat me to most of them. Oh well. ](]) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (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)
Hmm. Agree with reverts. Agree with possible block depending on comments. Noting here that there's been a bunch of IPs going around adding nonsense regarding this RFA to articles, which should probably be blocked on sight until at least the end of the RFA. &ndash; ]] 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)~
::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===None of this matters===
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Here is the traslations of Turkish to English;
:Lütfen acilen oy kullanın: Please come in vote urgently.
:User:.. admin olmak için oy topluyor.-User.. in vote to be admin. Lütfen hemen oy kullanın.;Please come in vote immediately. Görüşlerinizi yazın.; Wtite your oppinions. İşte benimkiler; Those is mine.....Görüşlerin iletilmesi çok önemli; It is important to put oppinions/poit of wievs.
.Selam.:Regard. İlgili link..;related link
:It is possible to have traslation from another source of course.
:As you see, I never invite any body to an '''oppose''' vote .I required their '''oppinions''' at vote page.
Regards
<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">]</font>] 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:First you included your own opinion in your spam messages, which shows a clear bias. More importantly you have selected which editors you advertize the RfA to. This introduces tremendous bias into the process and is unacceptable. ] 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I have blocked for disruption. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:18, 19 October 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. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Ok, this is getting out of hand. He is now continuing his spamming activity in the Turkish WP. . ] 15:57, 19 October 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. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
My bad. :-( I didn't check the times. The usual wrong assumption that something is done when you see it done, and not when the timestamp reads. My apologies to all involved. However, these contributions in the Turkish WP above can be used as evidence for Aldux's proposal above. ("''it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls.''") ] 16:35, 19 October 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)}}
----
(Having received an e-mail from Mustafa). While agreeing with all said above, I'd propose to the community that the block is lifted. I think that 48 hours for the first offense is way too much, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive; the crime he commited is serious and took a while to repair, but I don't think he was really aware how much it was against the rules. The thread above shows that Mustafa was civil and kind in response, as is my experience in contacts with him so far. I do agree what he did was way out of line, but I have a kind of understanding (if not sympathy) for what he perceives as team-tagging in Turkey and Greece related articles. He has simply chosen a '''very''' bad way to combat it, and (I hope) he learned his lesson. ] 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
:I'm sorry but I disagree. I may not be fully neutral on the issue, as I supported his nomination, but I feel that no tolerance must be shown to blatant attempts to disrupt a Rfa; IMO, it must be clear that all such attempts to carefully select the editors on a national base so to sink a rfa must earn a block.--] 12:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I strongly agree with Aldux. I also received an email from Mustafa Akalp which clearly shows he does not understand that what he did was wrong. He claims: "my messages is not include any comment to receivers for 'opposite vote'" despite the fact that his messages all included his strongly worded oppose in them. He openly admits he was trying to taint the RfA pool "I sent my messages to some users that possibly had problems previously with Khoikhoi" and sees nothing wrong with this action. He genuinely believes he has proved his case against the candidate despite not providing '''any''' evidence. This is an organized witch hunt against Khoikhoi where allegations alone are expected to be accepted as evidence of serious wrongdoing. We must take a firm stand against this. I strongly oppose lifting this user's block, and personally consider a 48 hour block to be too short. There is plenty of reason to believe Mustafa Akalp will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages's processes and articles as he doesn't understand what he did was wrong and has open and clear biases. ] 12:46, 20 October 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)
:::I would support shortening the block (I've already asked jossi to consider it), merely because I'd like to give him the opportunity to withdraw his comments from ] before it closes. If he doesn't wish to do so, then a longer block may be in order, but I think we should give him the opportunity. ]] 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I'd support this but only with the specific condition that Mustafa Akalp agrees to withdraw his oppose on the RfA and apologize to Khoikhoi for his accusation. I don't see the benefit of lifting the block unless he agrees to this beforehand. ] 13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Khoikhoi's RfA is to be completed within 24 hours. I don't think it's necessary to unblock Mustafa until the deadline. His behaviour was not acceptable and he should have ample time to reflect on this. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 13:47, 20 October 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)
Shorten the block? No way! I'd support lengthening it to indefinite. We don't need any nationalist struggles on Misplaced Pages. That's the worst kind of disruption. --] 14:03, 20 October 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)
:I've just received another email from Mustafa Akalp in which he claims his spamming was intended to "reach consensus" and in which he makes the claim that "from a neutral POV, No body had accused with like an allege before, in the history of wiki. More than 10 different users have this allege. This allege will have a stamp on this Rfa for ever." (by "allege" he is referring to his allegation that Khoikhoi was orchestrating edit wars by email off-Wiki). It is clear to me that Mustafa Akalp sees nothing wrong with his actions, is intentionally attempting to blacken the name of an editor in good standing and is an inveterate ] pusher who will do anything to oppose those who are trying to maintain ]. He has clearly declared that he will not remove his oppose contribution. I support an extended block or indefinite ban on this user, per Cyde. ] 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I may dazzle you with this comment, since I am the one who initiated all this, but I'll go ahead and say it (and it is not a pretence of goodwill): Mustafa probably hasn't understood that vote-spamming is bad, because nobody explained it to him adequately (forgive me if I miss something). I suppose that if we explain why the community has decided that this practice cannot be tolerated, he will reform himself, as he shows many signs of goodwill (i.e. self translation of Turkish messages etc.) I am willing to proceed in doing this but maybe I am not the most welcome e-mail correspondent of his! I propose that someone does it, and if he is convinced to strike his unfounded comments from the RfA, he can continue to edit. That's my two ]e! ] 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
::Sorry, but the problems with his actions have been explained to him in meticulous detail over email (he sent email to me, I replied). His response is above, a firm belief that he has done nothing wrong, is trying to maintain ] and reach ]. He genuinely does not understand the notion that spamming people known to oppose the candidate with his Oppose statement in the email might in some way bias the RfA proceedings. He also clearly stated that he intends that his allegations will leave " a stamp on this Rfa for ever". He simply won't admit any wrongdoing and has no intention of removing his comments. Someone this far from the vision of neutrality should not be participating in Misplaced Pages. ] 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
:::Agreed. I support an indefinate block in this case, and in the case of all knowing vote spammers, especially in such a serious case as an RfA, and especially when used to display such a nationalist agenda. --] 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: I would also consider that an indef block is appropriate in the case of such a serious disruption. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Request for closure===
:Consider my previous comment retracted then. After all, we use ] now! :-) ] 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
::He has been clearly told that his actions were wrong; and he appears to be unrepentant, and by his last messages, continuing his groundless accusations. As for that all this was done to "reach consensus", i.e. calling all the fellow Turkish editors he knew. He simply refuses even to remember of a simple thing called ]. For this I support Gwernol and Cyde's positions.--] 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
If that's the consensus, then, I'll go ahead and extend the block. --] 19:59, 20 October 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)
:Sorry to butt in, but I just would like u to remind that Mustafa is not a native English speaker and certain things might get ] :)).. I share Nikos' opinion on this.. He is a relatively new user and I don't think that we are being able to communicate with him effectively. I voted strong support for Khoi, OTOH I think that we shouldn't just bang up on people who might feel differently, especially if they r not native anglophones.. Instead we should try to improve mutual communication.. Believe me, there are much more serious nationalist POV pushers here, but they are native speakers and know their way around, so they never get caught; Mustafa however is relatively naive coz of the language barrier and hiw rookieness.. It would not be fair just indefinitely blocking him just coz of that. '''As for the vote spam'''.. He also sent me the same msg as email even though he knew I was a Khoi supporter beforehand from previous discussions.. I voted support and I find racist the suggestion or implication that all Turks r against Khoi's membership for whatever reason, TR users voted support more than oppose.. People have the intelligence to make up their own mind u know :))) ] 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request the rest of the users here to give Baris the chance to explain to Mustafa why vote-spamming is not tolerated in WP in his own language. Baris, if you don't know either, it is because the participation in the polls has to be from ''all'' wikipedia in a proportional way. Specific groups may have made up their mind for or against an opinion, and inviting ''only'' those that you presume will share your views is not permissible. As I responded to you in the RfA, it is not a matter of racism or IQ. It is a matter of POV, and there are many smart guys out there with a strong POV. In case the other users agree, you will have to convince Mustafa to retract his unsubstantiated accusations for Khoikhoi in the RfA, and acknowledge that vote spamming is not permissible. ] 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm going to have to disagree with the inef. block. First off, I don't think it's appropriate for a first offense. Most importantly, I believe that Mustafa is a good editor, and has contributed positively to articles such as ]. Does anyone mind if I unblock him? &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]]</span> 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::He can be told to behave better and be given a last chance I think. I support it mainly because of the extreme, damning irony involved in Khoikhoi unblocking this guy. ;-) ]]] 08:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I'd like to thank Khoikhoi, Niko and Baristarim for their efforts at giving Mustafa another chance here. I've had previous dealings with Mustafa and have found him generally good-willing and prepared to learn, but of course quite strongly hampered in his interactions on Misplaced Pages by his rather poor command of English. ] ] 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==
''This talk is continued in ].'' ] 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


==]’s block and allegation of provoking anti-Semitism==


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that BhaiSaab was blocked for “a week” mainly due to ]. BhaiSaab has requested for unblock.
: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.
Here is the description of the reason for block:
<blockquote> You have been blocked for 1 week, mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. Since Hkelkar is a declared Jew, and Ahmadinejad is a well-known holocaust denier and virulently anti-Semitic, I can only presume that you are trying to provoke something from him. Add to that, a lot of edit-warring and general fighting. </blockquote>


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.
BhaiSaab’s request for unblock is the following:


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.
<blockquote> Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, so what's your problem? Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic and would ever take place if he was anti-Semitic? Considering that Hkelkar goes sprouting opinions about Ahmadinejad ], then you don't allow me do the same I would consider this a double standard. Another admin reviewed the same edits and I received , then you come in and look at the section on Hkelkars page without seeing what he did elsewhere, and decide to block me. Very irresponsible. </blockquote>


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I should mention that I, for one, do not support Ahmadinejad in anyway. He can be very well, and in many cases rightly, criticized but fair is fair. I don’t agree that he is anti-semitic. Some may think he is but that’s a POV. As Bernard lewis writes anti-semtism has some marks:


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
He writes:
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote> There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.</blockquote>
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote> Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism… The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil. </blockquote>


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
Thus we should distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I haven’t seen Lewis mentioning new anti-Semitism in Iran but rather among Arabs. Ahmadi nejad is definitely anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Ahmadinejad’s denial of holocaust, while definitely unjustified, only meant that why Arab’s should pay the price of west’s anti-Semitism. I think
*{{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.
Aside from these comments anti-Semitism shouldn’t become a catch phrase to condemn someone. There are academic scholars who share BhaiSaab’s view (like the distinguished academic scholars of Islamic studies, Montgomery Watt). These are his words:


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 .
<blockquote> I do, however, think that the US is following a very dangerous policy in relation to the Middle East. The root of this trouble is that the US gives too much support to Israel. They allow them to have nuclear weapons and to do all sorts of things, some of which are contrary even to Jewish law. ''Jewish families occupy Arab houses without payment''. That is stealing. I think that the US should be much firmer with Israel and put a lot of pressure on them, though this is difficult because of the strong Jewish lobby. Unless something is done there’ll be dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Such danger would be less likely to arise if all three Abrahamic faiths - Jews, Christians and Muslims - paid greater respect to what God teaches us about living together. </blockquote>.
I would be thankful if the bhaisaab’s block could be removed. BTW, It seems that it was the other user who first brought up this issue and not BhaiSaab.


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, --] 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
*I just reviewed this unblock, wherein I discovered the following niceties for which BhaiSaab was blocked: (which I agree was meant to provoke), and I declined the unblock as I viewed these comments as inappropriate. Agree entirely with the blocking admin -- ] 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC) :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
:Well ] tells quite a tale as to Ahmadinejad's side of the story, and BhaiSaab knows that he is talking to a person who is declared as a Jew ]. As for claims that I am pro-Hindu or something I also blocked ] for religious inflammation (calling Muhammad a pedophile) and ] also for a week (uploading Allah=pig photo) in the past. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 05:45, 20 October 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, ]&nbsp;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
To Samir:
Samir, please note that 1. it seems that the other user brought up the issue first. 2. The majority of people in Iran voted for ahmadinejad. So, please respect it. There are people who think he is a nice guy. 3. Israel being on the map is the POV of many people. I personally think Jews and Muslims should live peacefully together, but maybe under a common goverment. 3. He said: "Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States" during the discussion. --] 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
: Blnguyen, see, I am an Iranian. I want a '''proof''' for your allegation of anti-semtism against Ahmadi Nejad who is a living person. Fair is fair. He is ruining many things and undefendable in many cases, but he is not an anti-semitic. I think I have the right to ask why you called him an anti-semtic. --] 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:*One week strikes me as excessive. ] was dishing it out pretty well him/herself: , "''oooooooooooh! I'm so scared!I hope he is as awesome when he tries to "wipe Israel off the map" and gets blasted into a hole in the ground.] 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)''" , , "''We'll see who tries to harm Israel. Israel is too prosperous, wealthy and successful to be threatened by some mad mullah.Israel has first world technology, art, science. Israel doesn't ram planes into buildings or behead journalists on television. No medeival dump with a theocratic mullah running things can be a threat to the holy land. Nor any other Arab/Persian/whatever country for that matter.] 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)''", ''"Like I said, we still win. You still lose.] 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)''". ''(]])'' 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Yes, it seems that Hkelkar was leading the discussion and BhaiSaab was merely responding. --] 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:While Hkelkar's comments were not appropriate, they do not justify BhaiSaab's in any way -- ] 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I think we need to analyze this issue in its context. Hklekar was the initiative and that's important. BhaiSaab's comments were short and in response to his comments. And again, ''I know that it might not be appropriate to write so in wikipedia,'' but BhaiSaab has a POV which is not far from that of some renowned academics. But I agree that he shouldn't have wrote them on Hkelkar's talk page, but again, the initiative was Hkelkar. --] 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Agreed that context is important. However, this is not a POV block issue, it is a block for inappropriate comments, which BhaiSaab made, regardless of the context thereof; the bottom line is that his comments were inflammatory ''even if he was provoked''. As such, I think the block was appropriate. I have to leave but, I agree that the comments of Hkelkar should probably be reviewed as well -- ] 06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: That doesn't justify BhaiSaab's statements, but I think the fair thing would be to block both. Hkelkar's comments were obviously provocative. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Samir, apparently those were the last in a line of inappropirate commentary by ]. Have a look ]. Hkelkar's sarcastic use of terms like, "''Halaal?''" and "''..should regard me as the Mujaddid..''" and ''"infidel''" while referencing ] appeared in the lead up to BhaiSaab's blocking and I suspect there are other examples of such commentary as well, Aminz? Equally inappropriate commentary should merit equal punishment no? I see a 12 hour block for ], but no 12 hour block for ] (obviously he got a week). ''(]])'' 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::To be frankly honest, in this sphere of editing it is basically close to worthless to police for mild personal attacks as it is more or less standard amongst this lot. I have already blocked HKelkar for the ad hominem Jihad references. So that leaves religious and racial inflammation, which BhaiSaab appears to have done. Hkelkar's personal jibe is more or less the norm in this area. Things which are meant to raise the ire of others by insulting religious figures or ethnicities is what matters more. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Blnguyen, I agree with you about the propensity for personal attacking in the sphere of these topics and the virtual pointlessness of trying to police this but are you denying the religiously inflammatory nature of ]'s commentaries? ''(]])'' 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::: But it is clear that Hkelkar was actively provoking BhaiSaab. BhaiSaab mentioned his POV(which by itself is a POV), which he shouldn't have mentioned. A week is too much seeing that Hkelkar was blocked for only 12 hours. --] 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
(leftshift after edit conflict) Let's make something clear. This is not about Ahmadinejad, and this is not a mere political dispute. This is about BhaiSaab's behavior and being uncivil. Let's note that this user did not think twice before using offensive language. ] indeed constitutes antisemitism (and not "anti-Zionism"). I strongly support Blnguyen's decision on this matter. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
: We can discuss it whether Ahmadinejad's denial of holocaust was anti-semitism or not, but did BhaiSaab deny it? He just said Israel shouldn't have been in the map in the first place. That is not a good comment to be made in wikipedia, but why is it anti-semtism? --] 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


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


:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
:I also support Blnguyen's actions - BhaiSaab's comments were completely uncalled for. Hkelkar is a seperate issue - his frequent appearances on ] to report people show a pattern of provoking others, that however, is a matter for RfC not a reson to unblock another editor. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:33, 20 October 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)
:: May I ask you if you consider prof. ] an anti-semitic? Again, I think BhaiSaab comments were not proper but not anti-semitic. A week is too long, given that he was provoked. --] 06:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
::: I was talking about the comment ''"Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic"''. To Aminz question: please read ]. Meanwhile, let's note that this was only one of many offensive things that BhaiSaab said. And for the record, I don't recall ever seeing contribs by {{User|Hkelkar}}. Please let's not make this a political talkbox. Thanks. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: I have seen ] and I think the views of some scholars such as Lewis are downplayed, or not properly reflected. BhaiSaab didn't really said much offensive things. His comments were short responses to Hkelkar. This discussion shouldn't have take place in the first place and it was Hkelkar who started it. --] 06:46, 20 October 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.
I'm an anti-Zionist (heck, I'm an anti-nationalist) and I'm not an anti-Semite. I don't think BhaiSaab should be given extra punishment because an admin doesn't like one of his political positions. This isn't to say that BhaiSaab is a model editor, but then neither is Hkelkar. We're seeing Indian domestic politics erupt in WP and it's an ugly sight. ] 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
: Yes, anti-Semitism means a discrimination against the jews simply because they are jews. BhaiSaab's argument wasn't hanging around the fact that Israel was formed ''by Jews'' but that why ''Israel'' was formed. It is a political position and has nothing to do with anti-semtism. --] 07:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
::Hmmm, maybe I haven't read well all of the details of this but where has ] denied the Holocaust? Obviously he's pro-] (who himself alludes to such thinking) but can one not be generally pro something while concurrently against certain aspects of that thing? ''(]])'' 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Errr, this isn't about BhaiSaab's political opinions. It's about him making in this case an ethnically inflammatory jibe – irrespective of what anybody thinks of Ahmadinejad, he is inextricably associated (regardless of anybody's opinion of him) as being anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying and Hitler apologist and the use of the jibe could only be seen as an attempt at ethnic/religious bloodboiling. Such incidents as the Muhammad=pedophile comment by Subhash bose and the Allah=Pig comment by FairNBalanced have also been met with a one week block.


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
::::In the case of Hkelkar, the type of behaviour he engages in more or less the norm in this sphere of editing we are talking about. Both sides more or less assume bad faith, accuse the others of being out to get them, siege mentality, sarcasm, calling each other bigots, extremists, fundamentalists, arbitrary sock allegations etc. - see ] and] – as such this kind of behaviour is more or less ignored or else we would have no coverage of India-Pakistan religious politics articles. I have found it useless to police people for this type of behaviour (See my talk archives – if anybody wants to start trying to police this area properly, then they are welcome to try), so the line is basically when somebody makes racial insults or religious lampoonery akin to the Muhammad cartoons etc in an attempt at bloodboiling. In the case of Kelkar (a declared Jew) here, he has claimed that the other users are doing an “Ahmadinejad” on him – this is the standard in this area of editing - to claim that users with opposing POV have an agenda. I do not see how this is equivalent to what BhaiSaab, bose or FairNBalanced have done.''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 07:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm not familiar with the Subhash Bose case but as far as ] is concerned the comparison of ] to him isn't fully justified imho. ] had been inserting himself into a group of Muslim editors and making religiously hateful edits for a long time prior to his final insult with the AllahPig image and it was for that reason that his weeklong block was merited. I've seen the ridiculous Muhammad=Pedophile idiocy bandied about repeatedly (] comes to mind) and not seen blocking for it but merely warnings. In a similiar vein ] recently made the argument that it was ridiculous that the American government should be hypocritically saying that other countries like ] and ] shouldn't have the bomb. One could argue that he supports these countries because of this... but in reality that's false because his opinion is that no country should have the bomb. ] was certainly baiting ] with his pro ] and anti-Zionist commentary but I don't think his having done that was much worse than what ] himself has had a pattern of doing. ''(]])'' 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well, I blocked Bose was new and I blocked immediately for that one, because that kind of inflammatory hate-speech isn't allowed. As for FairNBalanced, I had never heard of him and when Crzrussian reported it, I blocked immediately and asked people who appeared very familiar to adjust as necessary as I didn't have knowledge of what his past was. I am not comparing the records of BhaiSaab and FairNBalanced, I am referring to their singular acts. I asked people to modify FairNBalanced's block based on their knowledge of his past and nobody did anything. I don't feel that your comparison to N Korea is valid. People on WP repeatedly show their political opinions on political leaders all the time and nothing happens. I myself have been aware that BhaiSaab feels that Israel is illegitimate since August and declined a block request from his sparring partners. What happens here is that the uncontrollable norm of incivility, AGF violations, personal jibes, bogus accusations of misbehaviour and mudslinging etc in this area has crossed into the RED ZONE of making ethnic or religious jibes, which is where the magnitude of the block comes in. These guys have been doing the standard niggling tactics for 2 months. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::: BhaiSaab just said that Israel shouldn't have been formed in the first place and that Ahmadinejad is nice. That's it. --] 07:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Can anyone supporting this week long block provide a diff showing solid proof of anti-Semitic commentary/trolling on the part of ] (anit-Zionist commentary is readily apparent)? Thanks. ''(]])'' 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Here are two that strike me as uncivil and intentionally offensive: But I can imagine for someone who doesn't know the ], these won't ring a bell. ←] <sup>]</sup> 07:40, 20 October 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)
::::::Thanks for you response Humus sapiens. Those are undeniably anti-Zionist statements but can you honestly argue that they are undeniably anti-Semitic? I see confusion on the part of commentators here between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism... the arguement to ] is a weak one as the whole phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" is debatable given the arguments of folks like ] (see ]). ''(]])'' 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
:::::: Humus sapiens, thanks for sharing your thoughts. As far as I know anti-Semitism didn't happen in Muslim lands. Muslims were not treating Christians and Jews differently in any way, and traditionally Jews and Muslims were closer to each other than each of them was to Christians. It was only after the establishment of Israel that we observe this unfriendly conversations between Jews and Muslims. Otherwise, they were very close to each other, (and I would like to think they are). That's all I know about the history of anti-semitism. --] 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Incorrect.My own matrilineal ancestors came to India from Iraq to flee the persecution of Jews there. This was in the 18th century. Read about the history of the Baghdadi Jews in India, particularly David Sassoon.Plus, the Jews in Pakistan were ethnically cleansed together with the Hindus during partition in 47. Read about the now nonexistent Peshawar jewsih community. Khushwant Singh's "Train to Pakistan" also talks about the ethnic cleansing of the Pakistani Jews. None of this had anything to do with Israel.] 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::: For the reference to my comment, please see ] (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p.xvii ; Lewis (1984) Jews of Islam p.85 and ] Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, UNC Press, p.13 All I said was quite factual. --] 08:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


::All right. Let me add my own two cents. It is my goal to make scholarly and well-referenced edits to wikipedia.However, I am a human being with human flaws, including the tendency to get provoked. Bear in mind that it was BhaiSaab who started the talk page conversation regarding the holocaust denier who's currently running Iran.I reacted aggressively, and for that I am regretful.However, let me add some more facts.Prior to the talk page incitement, I was on #wikipedia-en chatting about an unrelated matter when Bhaisaab showed up and PM'ed me. He made some of the most frightening comments I had heard in my life, up to and including polemical attacks against Jews (not Israel, but Jews as a people). A lot of these statements are considered as anti-semitic. I did not react well to those statements and was in a very agitated state.


::However, since these statements were made off wikipedia, I ask that it be entered into evidence only as context. The context establishes that he intended to provoke me with inflammatory comments following the outcome of an edit war in another article (which, when thankfully stopped by administrator intervention, did not leave the situation in his favor). His support of the holocaust denier's call to eradicate Israel is a follow-up to that off-wikipedia conversation. When I first referred to the holocaust denier who's presently running things in Iran, I was addressing neither the user BhaiSaab nor the holocaust denier in the first person. Ergo, the comment, not directed at any specific person, does not count as an incitement. The only way it could have incited BhaiSaab was if he already had the view that any reference to the holocaust denier in a negative vein had to be responded to aggressively and with malice against the one who made the statement, and I cannot be held responsible for such an attitude.


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
::Plus, regarding the apparently overwhelming support for BhaiSaab, I ask reviewers to dig a little deeper into the users who make such statements.Specifically, the block logs, and the temporal correlations with their reactions to the blocks and those of BhaiSaab in prior incidents.Also, glean from all this the apparent "Quid-pro-quo" system where BhaiSaab has similarly raised a stink when some of these users got blocked.Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Correlate those ethnic groups to the ones involved in this issue, either directly or peripherally, and you will see that there is far more to this matter than meets the eye.
, , .


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.
::Now, like Pontius Pilate, I shall wash my hands of this matter altogether. Do whatever you please.] 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


] (])
::: "...Some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups..." Is it a personal attack?--] 07:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Er, a personal attack from me? On whom?] 07:30, 20 October 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)
:: ''Plus, cross-reference the users who speak '''"on his behalf"''' and the members listed in the '''Muslim Guild''' page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are '''quite prejudiced''' against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia.'' Dear Administrators, the only person talking on the behalf of BhaiSaab is me, and I am the only member of Muslim Guild here. Kelkar says I am quite prejudiced against specific ethic and religous groups which I consider a personal attack on myself. --] 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Vandal encounter ==
::Actually, my statements were very carefully worded. I did not say that there was a connection between the Muslim Guild editors here and prejudiced comments. There are several users speaking on BhaiSaab's behalf. If A is a subset of C and B is a subset of C then that does not mean that A=B. See ] to understand this point better.] 07:44, 20 October 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.
:::Actually, Subhash Bose used to this type of Venn diagram stuff too]


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
::::The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
::Yes many wikipedians like to use logical arguments. So every logician on wikipedia is my "sock" ^__^.] 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
* Not many work in the same laboratory,study in the same university,work almost on the same set of articles with similar perception,use similar sources,are common friends,express the same love for Zionism,act in the same aggressive manner,lie indiscriminately.One can recognise Bakaman's language,Bhaaisaab's language,Zora's language before reading their names.] 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Please have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BhaiSaab#Misplaced Pages:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23User:_BhaiSaab.E2.80.99s_block_and_allegation_of_provoking_anti-Semitism


:{{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)
Thanks --] 08:56, 20 October 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)


== User:Glenn103 ==
: Posting an IRC log is a policy violation: see . ←] <sup>]</sup> 19:59, 20 October 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)
:::Its not a channel log, its the log of a PM. --]] 00:03, 21 October 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 support the admins actions here. The language the blocked user used was completely inappropriate and completely against the spirit and the letter of the law on Misplaced Pages. A week block seems fair. ] 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
:::I also must voice my support for Blnguyen's and Samir's action. Nothing justifies BhaiSaab's behaviour; I have been attacked, insulted, provoked in far worse ways, and have never dreamed of awnsering them how BhaiSaab has, earning him is well deserved block, that I invite not to shorten. Yes, Hkelkar's behaviour is very far from exemplary, and may deserve also a block, even if it is, sadly, normal behaviour in certain areas of wikipedia. And yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.--] 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
:Well this isnt the first time BhaiSaab has made anti-Israel/Semitic comments .] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 01:27, 21 October 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.
::And not the first time HKelkar has used provocation ] 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


'''Key Points:'''
::Well BhaiSaab has been blocked a multitude of times (9 to be exact), mostly for contentious edits and revert warring. It would be 10 but for the fact that he misled an admin to believe I had vandalized an article (while he was doing the blanking) under the canard of "copyvio". Terry, if you havent forgot, you yourself have given users nice names like "fascist" and "paid agent".] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
The admins should take into account that ] is systematically taking an extremely provocative attitude with people he disagrees, by constant edit-warring and playing with the 3RR rule (he provokes, waits for reaction, then provokes again, and let the counterpart edit a 3rd time, then he requests for blocking under 3RR violation). User ] has triggered unumerables threats of blocking, personnal attack action etc. Just check his account and see. ] never takes the time to elaborate his viewpoint on talk pages, he just can't argue normally and has no precise perspective. He's just a provocative hate-mongering trying to block as much as he can. One week block is excessive. Really. But the important point is the following; '''admins take into account: I've also been accused of antisemitism by ] simply because I used the word "neocon" in an article see ; hence, for ] just using the word "neocon" is a mark of antisemistism... That example should put ]'s accusations at the level they deserve: these accusations are void'''. ] 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
# '''Impact on the Community:'''
#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.


'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
:Yes but there have been other instances of bhaiSaab hatin on the Jews. Anyway, you have been apt to defame ] and Hkelkar has merely let you commit your own mistakes on the page. You obviously have no idea of BhaiSaab's block log, his contentious edits, his ] stance, or his hatred for Israel. Putting things in bold doesn't automatically make it correct.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
::Also read Blnguyen's comments, Assuming Bad Faith, comes much easier to us than AGF. BhaiSaab has engaged in rampant baiting and bogus warnings, and misrepresentations to get me blocked. Look at 8 archives of my talk page, and ], ], etc. The point is that this has been a growing problem and we need to draw the line, just like they did with Subhash_bose. I have no idea who Aminz is, but my dealings with Netscott have not been positive either (see arx's on this noticeboard itself) with him accusing me of being and vandalizing my comments when I confronted him about false allegations of socking.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
: You are wrong ]. I never made defamation on ] page: over all the discussions happening there, I've always given references and arguments. As opposed to ], whose mere edits were: "Indology is not a science" or "referring to ] as a neocon is a mark of antisemitism". ] plays it the disruptive way. Nothing else. ] 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
# 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.
==] and ]==
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Can someone block the vandal who keeps hitting the ] and ] articles? ] and ] (Likely the same person, since both IPs trace to Los Angeles, and are used by someone making the exact same changes), keep deleting material from these two articles, including the accompanying photo in the case of the latter, even after I and another editor keep reverting it, and refuse to engage in dialogue on the appropriate talk pages. ] 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
:Pedro Zamora sprotected. ] | ] 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::This may have some relevance to {{User|Dollys}} who was on a campaign to recreate ] (]), repeatedly recreating it, ignoring all messages about G4 and Deletion Review, until the article was salted. Apparently, there's some ongoing feud between Winick and Quintana about Zamora. Dollys' Talk page messages (like ) assumed that editors involved were somehow involved with our "Jewish friend Judd Winick". ] 21:11, 22 October 2006 (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 don't know what good that level of protection will do, since it appears that the unregistered Dollys simply reversed the edit that implemented it, and Quintana is now a registered user who himself has begun re-inserting his vandalized edits. He has been given a warning on his Talk Page (without the red octagonal stop sign, mind you), and if this continues, something more decisive may have to be done. In addition, someone is also vandalzing the Judd Winick page, which is not similarly "protected" (though I cannot be certain it's the same editor(s). ] 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
==] & ]==
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I have filed ] case for mediation, but these guys are taking this to a new level. Please see ] article and the discussion for more details. I do not care to discuss anything with these individuals (or perhaps ]) any more. Just get them to leave me alone please!! I have removed their warnings from my talk page because they are completely bogus. I do not have a problem with being "warned" if it is for just cause.] 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
*Tecmobowl is acting like one of the vandals in the ] sockpuppet ring switching from television to baseball and staying away from his main targets of abuse. The patterns are obvious, even down to the ] posting and playing innocent. I first suspected him a few weeks ago. ] ] 09:00, 21 October 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.
*Don't think i've ever edited a tv page. Looks like people seem to agree with me though on his/her ] page. I don't care to continue discussions with this user, I just want to make the information out there reflective of the wiki standards. --] 09:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:Tecmobowl has never once edited a TV article, the hallmark of a SpottedDogs sock. These sock allegations are completely out of the blue, have lasted for weeks, and just make no sense. I have asked TV Newser before to cool it with the sock allegations and it just hasn't stopped. I have blocked ] for 24 hours for disturbance. I welcome review. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::Support. Baseless claims are disruptive and highly uncivil. &ndash; ]] 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Endorse as well. These actions were pure harrasment, with no evidence. <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">''']]]'''</span> 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
*] is part of the ]/] cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending ] is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! ] 09:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
**Another stupid ridiculous baseless outbreak like that would probably see ''you'' banned forever. &ndash; ]] 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
**In fact, looking at ''your'' contributions, you've only pretty much acted like a troll today - your first edits in a month. Very suspicious. &ndash; ]] 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
***I just got edit-conflicted at an AFD this new guy just participated in, by someone who signed as Tecmobowl. I definitely smell possible sockpuppetry here. &ndash; ]] 09:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
***What exactly are you accusing me of? Wouldn't be surprised if this was TV Newser or a buddy. --] 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Hallmarks of a standard troll. I welcome any admin to have a look. &ndash; ]] 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure exactly what's going on with ], but it looks potentially relevant to this whole situation. Impersonator or troll of some sort? ] 10:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::Whatever it is, IMO that IP needs to be blocked. The way to settle this whole thing would be an RFCU. &ndash; ]] 10:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Now I'm off to bed, will try to investigate further tomorrow. I appreciate all the input from Chacor and Daniel, and the investigation by Luna and Chacor. Thanks, all, and good night. :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 10:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm so totally confused, is ] accusing me of something or not? That being said, is it safe to say that unless something is done to one of the pages in question, I can leave this issue alone? --] 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Someone signed as you at ]. Was it you logged out? If it wasn't, then we're dealing with IPs trying to cause further havoc here. &ndash; ]] 10:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
*Nope, that wasn't me. This is ] signed out] 10:21, 21 October 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.
Please, don't get drawn in to this people. {{User|Belly Flop Patrol}} is clearly a sock since he knows far too much about a situation he's never been involved in. I've indef blocked. TV Newser is flying off the handle as usual, and needed to be blocked. End of. -] - ] 10:50, 21 October 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.
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ]&nbsp;] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
::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. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @],
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @],
*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Dear @],
*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
:Completely agree with that block, as well as the earlier one of Newser. Newser appears to be trolling here. His post uses diffs from Tecmobowl's reponse to the as evidence that Tecmobowl himself is the harassing one. Not funny. -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
----
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.


'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
::This is getting ridiculous, ] seems to be following ] lead. Please advise. ] 06:30, 24 October 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
: ''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'':
== CSD G12 and {{tl|copyvio}} ==
{{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''.
It appears Jimbo has the 48 hour and commercial purpose requirements of CSD A8 a.k.a. G12, and with it has virtually obviated {{tl|copyvio}}. Am I understanding this correctly? I Jimbo to clarify. Should we modify the {{tl|copyvio}} template to reflect the change? - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 01:48, 23 October 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.()
:We probably should modify {{tl|copyvio}} to that effect and maybe start dephasing it slowly. However it could still be useful in less straight-forward cases of alleged copyvio. -- ]] ] | ] 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::We should retain it for that reason. There are cases of genunie confusion and uncertainty. And then, giving someone with the interest the time to look it over is useful. There's no need to deprecate {{tl|copyvio}}, although it's use should naturally decline. -] - ] 18:59, 23 October 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;...}}
== ] evading 2 month 3RR block ==


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''
] was recently blocked for 3RR (5th offense) on ]. He has an exremeley out of control ] issue with ], ], and ] (see his talk page and the page histories for examples). He is now evading his block with his IP adress, {{IPvandal|72.227.129.181}} (See the IP's contribs for proof that it is his).--]] ] 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked. --] 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I should create a new section or not, but he's also using ] and ] to also avoid the block. The edit histories should be enough, but if they aren't, I can find more. ] 17:41, 24 October 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.''
== removing afd tags ==


This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
I hope this is the right place for this. Anonymous user 208.104.149.167 removed an afd1 tag from ] while debate was still open. I have informed this user that the action was unacceptable and restored the tag. Is there anything else I should do?] 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Not unless they do it again. ] | ] 04:45, 23 October 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''.
: For future reference, you can just drop a {{tl|drmafd1}} tag on their talk page rather than coming up with something. Easier for you and more specific for them. ]<sup>(])</sup> 05:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::Excellent. Thanks folks.] 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==] posting warnings without merit==
I am not sure this is the correct page, please direct me if it is not. Duke53 has posted several warnings on my user talk page, but either lacks an understanding of policy or is attempting to intimidate me. I have reviewed his contributions and he seems to be using warnings as threats with others. It may be helpful if a 3rd party reviews and comments directly to him to achieve acceptable behavior. Thanks. ] ] 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*Duke53 has been argumentative upon occasision. You can see one such discussion at ]. I removed Duke53's last reamrk,, but most of the conversation is still there. He is also being somewhat uncivil at ] and also making semi-off-topic posts. further down the same Talk page. ]\<sup>]</sup> 05:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::I also found this warning given inappropriately for this edit. I think Duke just has a fundamental misunderstanding of vandalism, personal attack, or any other potential warning. He passes them out haphazardly and inappropriately. ] ] 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'd like to add a mention of the blatant incivility demonstrated in ]. --] 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== Disruption by ]? ==

{{User|Zisoc}} has done almost nothing other than to add {{tl|db-noimage}} to 1.3 zillion image files. Can he be mass-rolledback w/o doing so being called "disruption"? Even w/ image files one has uploaded oneself? ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Well, I've just done a mass rollback, even though some of them may have been rightful taggings. —] (]) 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::I wasn't arguing that some small number of them might possibly on the remotest chance have been rightfully tagged with {{tl|db-noimage}}...but the 6 I looked at, including the one I uploaded, clearly were not... ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::What? The ones I looked at were properly tagged, for image files from commons that did have empty (blanked instead of deleted) image description pages here. Which one did you actually have a problem with? - ] 07:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Uh...one of us has got to be smoking too much crack...] is the one that set me off... ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 07:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Am Í missing something? Why are you adding categories here for images that only exist on commons? Why won't you create an account at commons and categorize them there? If the description page only has a category, it's not useful. - ] 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::First off, it's not "my" image, I simply used it. I don't know what you might be missing, or what, for that matter, I might be missing, but I've responded as best I can to the question I think you're asking, on your talk page. Cheers, ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::As an aside, and on afterthought, I think I may finally understand what you're driving at with your characterization of categorizing an image as "not useful"...and I have to say, I fundamentally disagree with the assertion I think you're making. Categories are not designed to be useful to the ''editors'' of wikipedia, especially not to '''experienced''' editors...as useless as they are to the complete novice, categories are designed to be useful to readers untainted by the jaded stains of trollabused wikieditors. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any "feature" of wikipedia that's designed to alleviate the strain on editors--everything is done to relieve strain on the ''readers''. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::The commons category that contains the image in question (among others), is linked from the equivalent wikipedia category. Creating a page that only contains a category for an image that's already in the same category in commons is redundant (in my opinion). - ] 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Lemme try to figure this out tomorrow when I get home from work. For now, I've gotta get some sleep. Just don't do anything drastic on me while I'm gone. :-p Cheers, ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== possible mass link spamming ==

] appears to be engaged in mass link spamming in art-related articles.
*Links contain the phrase "works_for_rent". <nowiki></nowiki>
*Editor's user name is in the URL: "www.keytoart.org.ua".
*Editor inserted links at the top of a list of external links and added a boldface title.
*Editor added links that are not directly related to the subject of the article.
*Editor has been warned before and has twice removed a spam warning from his talk page.
*Editor does not leave an edit summary.
--] 07:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Wow, (s)he's been under the radar for a long time. Blocked indef, and I'll get the sites he kept linking to put on the spam blacklist. Thanks a ton. --] 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks! There have been two sites AFAICT. One, which is now blocked, and the earlier: <nowiki>http://users.iptelecom.net.ua/~keytoart/</nowiki>, which appears in ]. (It looks like all of users.iptelecom.net is being blocked and I am not sure that is what is wanted.) --] 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, I got www.keytoart.org.ua and users.iptelecom.net blacklisted. I can't imagine any article in which you'd need to link to the latter, but if such a situation ever comes up, the specific URL can be locally ]. --] 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::::OK. I see what you mean — the latter is for user pages. I didn't think of that. Thanks. --] 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
The article ] is abused constantly if some one adds the critical information about this information. There are some people and obviously anonymous users who always delete the information which is critical about this community. They want to post information which only talks nice of Swadhaya Parviar and Jayashree Talwalkar.

The critical information / the converters about this community highlighted in the article have citation and were greatly highlighted in Indian media and throughout the world by Gujarthi media.
Can some one please block new users / unregistered users edit this article.

* ] is one such instance.
--] 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
A sysop protected this a few hours ago and now has a sign on their talk page. The article was protected with a high degree of pov-pushing by the supporters of Ignatieff who is right now in the middle of a political election campaign. There was no reason to protect it and to do so right after 1 side of the edit dispute had their way is a misuse of the "protection" option. ] 12:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:I am the sysop who protected the article, that wikibreak notice means I am not so active because of exams. I protected the ] because I discovered there is a content dispute going on, with no knowledge of the election campaign. --] <sup>(])</sup> 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
=={{user5|Stevensons88}}==
Greetings, this user appears to have chosen a name to impersonate myself and is editing negatively in the same Islamic topics as myself. Given this user's knowledgeable editing this is an obvious sockpuppet. This editor has been vandalizing Islam related articles by adding spurious {{]}} and {{]}} tags. The vandalism extends to and heavy negative and (which admin ] for). To top off this user's short editing history they've been adding {{]}} to ], ], ] and my own user related pages. A permanent solution relative to this user name would be most appreciated. Thanks. ''(]])'' 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:I have just added this user to ], I don't consider his antics any more special than regular vandalism and am treating it as such. As for the name, it is a very common last name, do any of his edits support the idea that he is trying to impersonate you? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::I have blocked him for one week...and if he returns and continues along the same path, the block will be longer so don't hesitate to let me know how things transpire.--] 13:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks MONGO, keep up the good work. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks MONGO for the prompt assistance. ''(]])'' 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== inappropriate username ==

Hope this is the right place - ] has an inappropriate username. ] 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:The 'right places' according to process seems to be AIV if it's obvious or a username RFC (much lighter weight than most sorts of RFC!) if it isn't. I'm not sure, but I suspect AN/I will do just as well in practice. --] 14:08, 23 October 2006 (]]])

== How to handle this situation - advice needed ==

I am under the impression that ] applies to all articles. When I come across a series of articles that have been on Misplaced Pages a long time and have no sources cited, I put the unsourced tag at the top under the belief that, in the long term, identifying and sourcing these articles is for the betterment of Misplaced Pages.

Today I was adding the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame Induction list for 1980 on the blues artists inducted. I noticed that all of them were unsourced so I added the unsourced tag and clearly noted the reason in the edit summary. Now someone has systematically removed the unsourced tag from each article under the edit summary of "cleanup" or something similar, but without adding any sources.

How do I handle situations like this? I contacted the editor in question and she says I have no business adding such tags. She considers my tagging driveby tagging and made assumptions about my knowledge of blues and intentions. She noted that I was not part of the Blues Project and have no right.

My question: Is this ethical behavior on her part? She not only removed the tags without asking me my intentions (i.e. was I contributing to articles about the blues -- which I have as well as writing them -- and also her removing the tags under misleading edit summaries.

Should I just ignore this and leave blues subjects alone (back away from such situations is the more frequent advice I get) or is it in Misplaced Pages's best interest that unsourced articles be tagged as such to inspire those interested to improve the articles? Thanks for any input! ]] 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

*Removing an unsourced tag without supplying a source is vandalism. Might I suggest a politely worded comment on the editor's Talk page, and ask why they did the edit they did? If they persist, list them as a vandal. ]|] 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
**Thank you for answering. ]] 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem appears to be that you are conflating citing sources with a ''specific style'' of citation. You are tagging articles because they don't use &lt;ref&gt;, rather than because they don't cite sources. (Several of the articles that you tagged ''did'' cite sources.) {{tl|unsourced}} is for where there are no actual (usable) citations, of ''any'' style. The tag that you are looking for is {{tl|citation style}}. Before going overboard with ''that'' tag, note that citation style should match the breadth of applicability of the source to the article. This often leads to a mixed citation style. See ], for example. ] 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
*I am going by a long standing discussion with ].Please see recently ] and ] This administrator has been very clear and consistent over time. Other than TomTheHand, I can not find a reliable source of guidance on this isuue. If you can point me in the direction of one, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! ]] 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
**The article in question cited 7 sources, all listed in ]. The problem here is not that sources were not cited. They were. A citation, giving the author, publisher, title, and date of a book, is a full citation. It provides the conventional information necessary for a reader to locate the source, which is what citations are for.<p>The problem that you are addressing is not lack of citations, but, rather, which part of the content is supported by which cited source. In the absence of &lt;ref&gt; or Harvard-style notations in the body of the text, there are no explicit links between content and citation. That doesn't mean that the article is unsourced, however. It merely means that the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article isn't being spoon-fed to the reader. In many cases, the article can be improved, by linking sources to specific article sections, or to specific paragraphs, using &lt;ref&gt; or Harvard-style notations. But, conversely, note that there are cases where sources can encompass wide swathes of, or even the whole, article, and the link between citation and content really is best left at the level of the article as a whole.<p>Our ] policy merely requires that sources ''be'' cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. For more information see ]. ] 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] wants to be indefblocked ==

We're not supposed to indefblock people who want to leave Misplaced Pages. But, this guy that he'll get himself indefblocked by disrupting Misplaced Pages if I don't block him. Do we have a procedure for this kind of cases? --] 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'd say block him indefinatly, and if he ever wants to come back, let him consider the consequences of being disruptive to get what he wants. --] 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:: I blocked him. It's quite sad to see a person requesting a block, but I think that at this point we are loosing too much time on this discussion because it is evident that he decided to be indefblocked. Of course, everybody's free to wear suns^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hunblock him, I don't want to have anything with this any more, if you think I shouldn't have done this, just unblock him. --] 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:::We really need to advertise the ] more. I just unblocked someone else who was blocked at their own request. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I recently had a run-in with this user over the speedy deletion of some pages he'd worked on. I offered to restore two of them (without going through DRV), but his sexism and personal attacks quickly made the conversation turn. (See the conversation I removed , as well as my comments (admittedly not the calmest I could have written) ].) Another user alerted me to the fact that he'd been warned for personal attacks in the past (which I had gleaned from his talk page), but I did not realize he had a similar incident report just a few weeks ago (see ]). While this was amicably resolved, it seems that he did not learn from the incident. While a person's beliefs are his or her own business, attacking a person based on gender is a clear violation of ], and requesting all womankind to respond to his attacks is using WP as a ]. I'm not sure if this should go to RfC, since the first attempt to resolve this was "successful". Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- ] 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:I have encountered similar irreverence to wikipedia norms from this user before.I'm not sure how to link to this, but he made several uploads of images that were blatant copyvios (he put one in ] ) which were speedily deleted. However, he had uploaded several such images from the same website that had a clear "All rights reserved" statement on it and, if an admin could assist me, then I can cite the records of the speedy deletions.This shows an irreverence for copyright rules on wikipedia. In addition, a mediated debate progresses on ] (see ]) where he continuously misrepresents sources and tries to push a POV without adequate ]. Most of the sources cited in the article are fabricated or misrepresented and, when confronted about this by a mediator ignored the mediator completely and still continues with such tendentious editing (see mediator's assessment ). He has also made numerous veiled ethnic slurs on ] and further misrepresented the facts to try to bait users into argument . He remains unapologetic for these acts and continues on ].] 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::"''I'm not sure if this should go to RfC, since the first attempt to resolve this was "successful".''"
::To be honest, I considered it closed at that time for that reason (assuming of course you were referring to the incident on my talk page and elsewhere). However, this doesn't appear to be the case! If the previous incident had been resolved successfully, then surely the same problem wouldn't have arisen again. While this user does have many good and invaluable edits among his contributions, it's also evident that he has displayed/aired these very offensive views on wikipedia throughout the history of his membership and is unlikely to change them. I would say that a firm message needs to be sent - the question of course is what that message would entail, which is a question I cannot answer. The eeasy way has been tried already. --] 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::he persists with his remarks even after he got admonished . He does not seem to have reformed at all.] 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::In light of those attacks (and ), I've blocked him for 48h. I'll monitor his edits once the block expires. -- ] 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::This user is thoroughly unpleasant and seems to want to push his distasteful view of women on anyone nearby. It doesn't help that he's insulting and demeaning to those who disagree with him. My own peace of mind (and civility of comments) has slid downward such that I doubt I can interact with him civilly, and that's even without having the gender his bile targets. Misplaced Pages doesn't need behaviour like this, and he's expressed that it is his God-given duty (literally, as he's excused his words on religious grounds) to not keep it to himself. &mdash; ] ] 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He continues his behaviour on his Talk page even while blocked for it. &mdash; ] ] 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, I noticed that, too. He's earned himself a week's block. After this, however, I'd like another admin to review his actions. I dislike being the only admin involved in this kind of dispute, particularly when I was one of those attacked. -- ] 15:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:: As another admin I endorse the current blocks. If you want I'll make any further blocks as an uninvolved admin. ] 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== {{User|38.119.52.98}} ==

Please be careful about blocking {{User|38.119.52.98}}, this is a school IP - and if there's vandalism, please leave a message on my talkpage. Any blocks will cause collateral to me. --] 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Not all - for several months we've been able to block anonymous users only. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Internet for Learning: Vandalism traced to schools ==

I am an employee of Internet for Learning, and I have just spent hours trawling the firewall logs to see which schools are responsible for the vandalism on this site.

The schools include:
* Formby High School (www.formbyhigh.org)
* Ainsdale High School (www.ainsdalehope.co.uk)
* Greenbank High School, Southport, Lancashire (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
* Marling School, Bath, Somerset
* Estover Community College
along with 2 other schools in the West Midlands, and 2 in the East Midlands.

The vandalism seems to emanate from the <s>3</s> 5 educational facilities mentioned above; I will post back any more information when I can find it.

Apparently students seem to have used the IFL grid to access pornographic material ('Nuts' magazine) and Misplaced Pages; these two sites appear most frequently in our firewall logs.

I would like to apologise for the behaviour of the students and I assure you, there will be an investigation into this (however, due to confidentiality, I cannot discuss the ongoing investigation any further). --] 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well, for what it's worth, school IPs usually do commit a lot of vandalism. '''] (]·]·])''' 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::AN:I troll? Anyone? --] 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::refer to ]... ~]] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::This is '''genuine''', I have checked the logs, and they trace to user logins on terminals at these 5 schools:
* Formby High School (www.formbyhigh.org)
* Ainsdale High School (www.ainsdalehope.co.uk)
* Greenbank High School, Southport, Lancashire (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
* Marling School, Bath, Somerset
* Estover Community College

Contact the relevant schools if you wish to discuss IP blocks - thanks. --] 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:But we can't do much because you haven't provided the school's IP addresses. We block and warn the IPs, we usually don't send emails to the districts' headquarters. '''] (]·]·])''' 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::I don't see where we're being asked to do anything. ]|] 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I read it as that he wants us to take action on the issue. '''] (]·]·])''' 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::These are the relevant IPs:
* {{vandal|62.171.194.13}} blocked 3 times - used by Formby High School library (http://www.formbyhigh.org)
* {{vandal|62.171.194.36}} blocked 16 times - used by Greenbank High School (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
* {{vandal|62.171.194.37}} blocked 13 times - used in Formby High School library
* {{vandal|62.171.194.38}} blocked 10 times
* {{vandal|62.171.194.39}} blocked 6 times

What I am saying is, contact '''any''' of the 5 schools mentioned above to discuss blocking issues and repeat vandalism from students. That is the only way forward.

I have checked the firewall logs, and they trace back to the 5 schools above. --] 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also be careful about blocking {{vandal|38.119.52.98}} - see the IP's talk page for details. --] 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Personal attacks & incivility on WP as well as offwiki meatpuppet recruitment ==

] has taken a consistently incivil position towards myself and other users. He has increasingly engaged in this derogatory attitude, including personal attacks. I also recently discovered that he had written similar statements online (outside Misplaced Pages), including requests for meatpuppets on the specific article that we both often edit. I suggest that he be blocked for 1-4 weeks in order that he might have a better appreciation for acceptable behaviour, though I ultimately leave that up to the relevant administrators' prerogative. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Online:
*
*
*

General incivility, personal attacks, and assumption of bad-faith:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

:Although off-wiki actions aren;t technically punishable, this user invited further disruption of Misplaced Pages in addition to the disruption he himself has already caused here. Everything taken togehter, I have decided that a block of 10 days is appropriate. ]]]<small>]</small> 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think any off-wiki action that cases on-wiki disruption is can result in a block to help protect the wiki further. But blocks are never punishment anyway... ---] (]|]) 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== Link spammer ==

] is persistently spamming and has ignored warnings. Is this the correct place to report the issue? ] doesn't appear to include linkspam. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>]]</b></i></font> 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked indef by ] . --] | ] 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==]'s inappropriate username (again)==
For months, ] has been using his username for the purpose of linkspam, as explained at . After several months of promising to change his username, he was recently blocked, but was then to request that his username be changed. However, the request he posted on ] was
because the new username he requested was also inappropriate. After being unblocked, ] has , thereby adding further linkspamming to their edit histories. Since this user has persistently refused to allow his username to be changed, I submit that his linkspamming needs to be stopped. ] 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just block him until his username is ''actually'' changed. An admin can post the change name request to ] on his behalf. --] 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:He can't block him, Cyde; he's not an admin. (I would, but I'm not going to be around for a few days, so won't be able to follow up.) &mdash;] 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Geez people. I just blocked him. ]]] 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Am I misunderstanding something in these speedy delete images? ==

], ] and ] are a few of a bunch requested for CSD because "This is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" but they appear to be the images from commons, not just a duplicate. Am I misunderstanding something, or is the template incorrect? ] 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:You are ;). See the vs. , and notice the odd question in the image description on the Misplaced Pages one. That's the bit that needs speedy deletion. ] 01:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::If you look at the history you will see it is a new user either being ignorant or malicious. I am trying to determine which. And 24, that is not enough to qualify it for speedy deletion. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Oh dear, look at this, I don't have time to fix this right now, but he needs a swift block in the pants. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::The template is incorrect, he is a vandal, feal free to revert any or preferably all of his edits to images where he puts incorrect templates. The vast majority of his edits are vandalism if not all, so mabye an admin could fix it faster. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Not all his edits are vandalism. I sampled one lower down, and it does indeed have no license info, as the template he added indicates. Since I created none of those images, and I'm now pretty sure the templates with that reasoning and a "from Commons" description are incorrect, I'll remove a few, but he has 130 edits. If a majority of them are bad, I'll need help. If an admin can rollback, that'd be great. ] 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::: At least user tagged did not have an empty description page. Many of the blank ones have history that may be worth saving. The template was edited ; is this not in accord with I2 or should this be reverted too? ] 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::: Many of these images were uploaded by the ] - is a connection possible? ] 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::With a lot of help from ], I believe all of the commons images are now off CSD. The rest have "no source/copyright info, delete in x days" tags, which I didn't scrutinize but generally look correct. ] 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, how is tagging empty image description pages for commons images with the correct template vandalism? I thought we already went through this a day ago. - ] 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:So deleting those pages will not affect the pages that link to those images? If so, then I admit I'm completely in the wrong, which is why I waited for more opinions on AN/I before proceeding. I and others who responded were concerned the images might be CSD'd incorrectly and lost.

:Considering this incident and another you mention, the template should have a bold note so it's crystal clear slapping it on images with "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." is exactly what's supposed to happen.

:While it's clear to you, it's not clear to the people who responded here, all in good faith. I had no knowledge of the previous incident and noticed this one when I browsed some images in CSD.

:I apologize for my actions.

:I'd be willing to revert the edits, though I'd be doing them manually. Is there someone who can revert all of ours in just a few keypresses? If not, I'll do my part. ] 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Deleting the description page here won't affect the image in commons, or the description page there in any way. If you want to delete the actual image from commons, you'd need to log in to commons and be an admin there. Sometimes the description pages that are on wikipedia for commons images aren't useless, such as translations for longer pieces of text in the image description, but in these cases they were empty, and as such added nothing to the descriptions themselves. That's why the template says "or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image". - ] 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm copying your reply on my talk page because it imparts useful info that your AN/I reply doesn't have, and I'm replying on AN/I so that a few more people might see it, even though it is Grand Central Station. ] 09:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hi, don't worry about it, I'll probably fix (ie. delete) them eventually. And there's really no fault in what you did, you just happened to get unlucky by having people who weren't familiar with the subject answering at WP:ANI. As an example, I deleted the image page I linked above. As you can see, it's still a bluelink, but if you click on it, you'll see that it doesn't exist on wikipedia anymore (the "image" tab at the upper left corner is red). This is how it should be for the commons images. - ] 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm glad it's not a big issue and that you understand. I see the image is still there and that the Image tab is red, and "empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" makes sense ''now''.
:::See, I thought that "empty image description page" means that there'd be ''no image to view'', just a description, especially given the other two: a missing or corrupt image. I wasn't sure if deleting the file "here" would delete it from commons or not, but I thought there'd be many missing images on the pages in "File links". Yes, some of the images had no WP pages linking to them, but in my mind there was a chance they'd be deleted from commons as well.
:::The other possibility was exactly what you just explained to me, that deleting these pages are fine. (How'd they come to exist on WP, since none of them had English translation descriptions?)
:::The wording is unclear since we all believed the incorrect option or were at least very unsure, and this is the second such incident. I suggest adding '''IMPORTANT: This will NOT delete the image from Commons, and if you see the image fine above, you will STILL BE ABLE TO SEE this image on any page it's linked to, at this exact address and with this description. In other words, ]'''
:::I'm serious. It should be crystal clear that a good faith user seeing this 1. Shouldn't panic and 2. Why s/he shouldn't panic. I'd be bold, but ] says Be timid. Or to be precise, "Please read ] before editing." That link gives me no help to understanding what I might screw up if I edit this template. ] 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==Harassment on ]==
Some months ago, I was forced to ban someone from the portion of the message board website, , that I moderate for violating that site's rules governing civil behavior. This person responded by going on what another moderator described today as "a rampage", making countless off-topic posts on other boards to attack me or otherwise complain about his ban, and eventually attack the other visitors to the site as well, even after he was repeatedly informed that that site's owner had reviewed the issue and upheld his partial ban, and that he was to cease making off-topic posts to reignite that issue. His repeated refusal to do so, and insistence that he was a victim fighting for justice incurred the ire of just about every other moderator and visitor to the site in the process. He even attempted to get our server/host to shut down the site, and even followed me here to Misplaced Pages, where he created a single-use identity, ], for the sole purpose of participating in an AfD to get an article deleted simply because I had created it, and lash out at nitcentral. Just today, from the site's "Kitchen Sink" (the area where visitors can discuss administrative issues pertaining to the site), for repeatedly ignoring his past warnings to cease this behavior, and informed me via email that Rwetruck flooded his email to excoriate me.

Now, Rwetruck is harassing me on my User Page, having made three posts just today, asking me to contact him, and demanding an "apology", and is even addressing me using my real first and last name, despite the fact that he knows I do not use my real name on this site. I would appreciate suggestions. Thanks. ] 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Edits deleted, editor warned, hopefully dealt with. &mdash;] 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==This guy is back==
This guy was suspended for vandalism - and he's back at it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&diff=83333574&oldid=83331644

== ] abusing Misplaced Pages procedures ==

Shotwell has accused several editors of all being sockpuppets in retaliation for a question being raised about his relationship with another editor, both of whom are involved in various disputes on the following articles: ], ], ], and ] (] was blocked for a brief period of time for similiar conduct on the Bowlby article). In addition, Shotwell has been engaged in a series of edit wars and revert wars and other uncivil actions that are not consistent with building consensus or reducing disputes. There is a mediator involved, but the mediator is new and seems over his head; he's not taken any action or made any recommendations and the issue is beyond the one page he "signed on" for.
<font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] at it again? ==

*A few months back, {{vandal|Asadaleem12@hotmail.com}} created a heckuva lot of hoax articles, as well as vandalizing established articles with fallacious information about his imaginary fame. Since then he has quieted down a bit, but recently, he has edited his user page and the user page of suspected sockpuppet {{vandal|Bret John}} to appear like legitimate Misplaced Pages articles. Another user that claims relation, {{vandal|Calvin John}} has appeared, claiming to be "Bret"'s father. He also claims to be ], which would make it difficult to edit Misplaced Pages. While all this stuff is confined to the userspace (and hence not really disrupting Misplaced Pages), it makes me a bit nervous. ] 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==SPUI==
It seems SPUI has been trolling with the edit summaries of for the past few days now. Any comments on how to deal with this? ''semper fi'' — ] 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:He was blocked for this disruption before following a report on an arbitration report page. He is obviously ignoring that, he needs another block.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::You what? For inappropriate edit summaries to six edits in the last ten or so days? Erm... Thanks/] 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked SPUI nicely to not do that? It's not like he's really disrupting anything, just being mildly silly. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yes he has been asked not to do it a week ago by {{admin|Lar}}, he has ignored this. He is also on ArbCom parole for disruption on Highway-related article.s--]<sup>]</sup> 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::I would give him a more mild block next time he does it then. Obviously 15 minute blocks don't cut it and, when warned, he ignores it, so maybe a 24 hour block he continues? ''semper fi'' — ] 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I just had a 24 hour block on him shortly after reading this, but I've shorterned it to 8 hours. I don't think this will affect him too much, he doesn't seem to edit too frequently, but could work as another warning.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Most certianly agree with the short block. Since he's not frequently editing at this point, there stands a reason to give this block for this blatent disruption.. OK.. maybe his edits weren't all that too bad, but edit summaries copying a well known vandal isn't exactly what I would call helping. ''semper fi'' — ] 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Hes SPUI. Hes a little silly, but really, hes a freakin genius. --] 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He obviously . Any thoughts?--]<sup>]</sup> 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

: At this point, he has 110 entries in his . Short blocks are perhaps business as usual. I don't know.... is it worth trying to force someone to not use silly edit summaries for otherwise semi-productive edits? --] 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::My opinion is that, whatever positive edits SPUI is contributing, it's more than offset by his unacceptable behavior and he should be blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, others don't agree and will simply unblock him no matter how unacceptable the behavior is, and he will resort to sockpuppetry (with impunity) if blocked, anyway. --] (]) 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or, hell, maybe we ALL should start taking breaks to vandalize and disrupt every so often, if it's going to start becoming an acceptable practice. --] 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Vandalize? As I understand it the complaint here is solely about edit summaries? How is that vandalism? If he used no edit summaries AT ALL would we be blocking for that? It isn't the preference, but hasn't normally been a blockable offense. Is "SQUIDWARD" so much worse than ''nothing'' that we must warn and then block for it? What exactly is it harming other than his own credibility? To me this seems like looking for excuses to inflate a trivial issue into an actual problem. Leave it alone unless he does something which would actually ''require'' a block to prevent ''damage'' to the encyclopedia... not because he is using silly edit summaries while ''improving'' the encyclopedia. --] 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sillyness is harmless fun. As soon as someone starts debating whether or not it's harmless fun, it's not sillyness, it's disruptive. Stop it or be blocked. That's how I feel. --] (]) 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Normally I would agree with you CBD. But, look at this diff This is hardly what I think of when I think 'harmless' or 'silly'. To me, removing cleanup tags, blanking an article and adding the edit summary SQUIDWARD are not the kinds of things I expect out of an editor to behave. I wouldn't mind one or two of those silly edit summaries if he actually had a point to add the summary, but copying the vandal's edit summaries repeatedly after an extended period of time and after two blocks, whats there left to assume good faith with? ''semper fi'' — ] 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::With he should be thankful that the ArbCom put him on probation and did not ban him for a couple of months. Instead he continues to make intentionally disruptive edits. If you look carefully, he was not just removing the tag once earlier, he was revert warring over it with that edit summary! (See , , ) This is almost vandalism. I see no reason to let him get away with it, especially while on probation.--]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::But the stuff being removed is a bunch of unsourced original research... Disrupting attempts to re-add drivel of this sort seems morally ambiguous perhaps, but not disruptive to Misplaced Pages itself. The edits you cite are improving the article, in spite of the trolling done with the edit summary. ] 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Edit summaries are meant to explain your edit to help others understand. Edits removing large ammounts of content (wether it belongs or not) with the edit summary "SQUIDWARD!!" will be seen as trolling. When he begins ''edit warring'', not explaining his edit at all, it is disruptive. An indef sounds perfectly logical to me.--]] ] 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I agree completely, Mike. The article is unsourced nonsense and perhaps JesseW summed it up best . This was discussed at length in #wikipedia IRC. I looked at the article and suggested it should be either deleted or the scarce useful content merged to ]. At worst, SPUI is guilty of proving a ], that some people will look for any excuse to block him. — ] 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Looking at the specific situation in the diffs above I agree (with Moe) that this is more than just a useless edit summary... those were extensive changes which could lead to confusion as to whether they were valid or not. The usual situation then is to communicate about the reasoning... I checked ], ], and the edit summaries in the history of that page, but it doesn't look like anyone even ''asked'' SPUI for an explanation. Others have since provided seemingly valid reasons for SPUI's changes here. Yes, meaningful edit summaries might have explained the changes up front and thus avoided the need for additional communication... which is why we strongly suggest that people use them. However, again... we have not to date blocked people for failing to provide that 'up front' explanation so long as they ''do'' explain when asked directly. SPUI seems to be 'acting out' in a less than helpful way... presumably because of the browbeating with which the road poll was pushed through (which, it should be noted, I supported, though reluctantly, given the wider disruption resulting from ''not'' settling on '''some''' standard). However, jumping to block isn't going to make that better. If he does something which seems strange without explaining it we should be able to muster the civility to at least ask WHY and only block if he doesn't explain it. Basically, the situation here is that we'd rather block than expend the effort to ask for an explanation. If SPUI were an actual 'vandal' who was unlikely to ''have'' a valid reason I could see that, but given that everyone (I think) agrees that SPUI is trying to improve the encyclopedia (as he sees it) why make a small problem into a bigger one? We should block people when we find we have to, not when we think we can. If SPUI wouldn't provide explanations for disputed edits then we'd '''have''' to block him... but if we don't even ask for explanations it doesn't seem like we're even trying to resolve things - just going straight to blocks whenever we think there is some reason that we can. --] 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering, what philosophy drives this block? An edit summary of "SQUIDWARD!" is not disrupting anything, nor is it any more useless/useful than a blank edit summary, which i don't see many other people being blocked for. If I chose to write SQUIDWARD or leave the edit summary blank, what difference does that make? ] 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:You are obviously not aware there is a recurring vandal who vandalizes articles by posting pictures of squidward and leave the edit summaries of SQUIDWARD!!!, right? ''semper fi'' — ] 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, I was not aware of that; my apologies. You aren't referring to SPUI as the vandal, correct? I havne't seen him doing that recently. In either case, unless this vandal is / is a sockpuppet of SPUI, the edit summary alone shouldn't warrant a block though, is my opinion. ] 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::No problem. No, I wasn't refering to his as a vandal, but his edits did look suspicious when he blanks article sections and tags and has the edit summary of SQUIDWARD! He clearly didn't vandalize, but the edit summaries just go beyond exceptable of what ] and ] say. SPUI shouldn't be blocked anymore right now. If warnings on his talk page continue to grow, I would call for a more stern block. ''semper fi'' — ] 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==] harrasing me and unnecesary tags on ] ==

A ] has been unnecessarily harrasing me by posting person attacks on my talk page and tagging the article I created. I created the article {{article|Alex Machacek}}, then out of nowhere came ] and tagged the article as advert . He mentioned in the summary the word - "Jawdropping". I removed the word and removed the tag. Then I informed him about me removing the tag. He retorted with this on my talk page - . He said "''Repack that attitude, son, it's not going to get you far.''" He mentioned two more specific POVs, one which I promptly changed and the other wasn't a POV, for which I included a citation. I again told him that I'd removed the tags and rectified the matter. Again he comes and put the tags - . He posts on my talk page . He says "It's said often to me, kiddo, by trolls, the dishonest, the incompetent, and the fanatical." I add more references and remove the tags. He again comes and tags the article . He then attacks me again - . He writes "What IS your major malfunction?". I ask him twice, to mention the specific instances of POV, so I can remove/rectify them, but he doesn't reply.

These seem to be done in a totally bad faith. The ] is not interested in removing POV or doing any good. It seems he wants to put the tags just for the sake of putting 'em and harrassing others.

--<b>]]] | </b><b><sup>]</sup></b>/<b><sub>]</sub></b>\<b><sup>]</sup></b> 05:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
*The article read neutral to me, so I've removed the NPOV tag. I've left the cleanup tag, and, while it may be a little superfluous, it's not harming the article, and may attract more attention to improve it. Hopefully this resolves things, and I'd encourage discussion on ] on further ways to improve the article -- ] 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
**It looks like a perfectly good musician article to me, I don't see what the big deal is. ]]] 05:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::*Ah, so bald -- and unsourced -- statements of "jawdropping" debuts and "extraordinary chops" in the first graf is standard for musician articles. Fanboys, take note. Meanwhile, I need to go make a few changes of my own in a few articles.

::*''Then I informed him...'' "Informed"? I quote from the message: "...'''Don't sabotage other's hard work'''. By the way, Alex Machacek is a leading fusion guitarist and '''he is in no way related to me'''. Where does the idea of advert comes in ? I am removing the tag. If you have any issues, please tell me first. Don't tag articles just like that."
::Between the bad-faith attitude, his own initial personal attacks, complete misunderstanding about the purpose of tags, his peculiar projection regarding motivation (it never occurred to me that he was related UNTIL NOW), and ], he's got nothing to complain about. --] | ] 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Before saying things like these and attacking other users as fanboys etc., the user must first take a look at my contribs. I am registered since last year. This is nothing but undue harrasment of other users. By the way, the idea of relation came after you tagged the article as advert. An advertisement would be done only by those people who are related to the subject or the subject themselves. And that's why I said that. I reiterate again, rectify your attitude, instead of treating everyone as trolls, wannabes, etc. (in your own words). --<b>]]] | </b><b><sup>]</sup></b>/<b><sub>]</sub></b>\<b><sup>]</sup></b> 07:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Accusations of harassment have no place here, either, so don't even ask him to "rectify attitude" when clearly you're also being uncivil. &ndash; ]] 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have any problem. <s>I won't contribute the article from now on if that's what you people want.</s> Thanks. --<b>]]] | </b><b><sup>]</sup></b>/<b><sub>]</sub></b>\<b><sup>]</sup></b> 07:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't sabotage other's hard work" isn't a ]. It's reactionary, but that isn't the same thing. Also, NRS, there's no reason to stop contributing. No one asked you to; the first response to your report was positive, then you got a negative response from the person the report was about (which is normal), and then a statement was made about the nature of the discussion. There's a dispute here, but you're not in trouble. Just ride it out. --] 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry to have said that. Misplaced Pages is very close to me now. I will certainly contribute. I know these things happen. Thanks, everyone. --<b>]]] | </b><b><sup>]</sup></b>/<b><sub>]</sub></b>\<b><sup>]</sup></b> 09:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:''"Don't sabotage other's hard work" isn't a ]. It's reactionary, but that isn't the same thing.'' Utter crap. Tell me, did you pick up your nuclear-powered hair-splitter at Home Depot or WalMart? --] | ] 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::Irony abounds. --] 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==User Page Harrassment, Uncivil Behaviour, Excessive Reverting and More==

{{IPVandal|63.17.106.109}}

I've never seen anything like this, or at least been harrassed on here like this. The user above (and other IPs all beginning with 63.17) has posted psuedo vandalism-warnings on my talk page, reverted legitimate edits from other contributors on the ] article in an edit war with myself and two other users (most notably ]). This user was improperly using {{fact}} tags on the ] article, which is fine, however he reverted attempts at fixing these sections using proper templates and the posted "vandalism" and "admin" notices on my talk page after reverting perfectly legitimate edits back after I'd fixed them. Finally this user is attempting to draw admin ] into this by claiming that Glen knows about him, and by referencing/baiting him in his edit summaries. Then the user left the following edit on another editors talk page regarding this issue - suggesting that I may be sockpuppeteering the entire thing. . The last instance of the users beligerant behaviour here on my talk page and in edit summaries here: where he's trolling.

Sorry this is such an unusual request. I'm attempting to keep a cool head, however my patience is limited. I've asked the user to stop, however providing boiler plate warnign is useless because of the mulitple IP addresses that are being used. And as you can see, from the last edit to my talk page, this user is not interested in doing anything other than what they want. Thanks in advance for any help. ] 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Update - the ] continues today - from yet a third IP, though it's clearly the same user. See edit summary . ] 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== User:WickedHorse ==

This new user seems to be "wiki stalking" me. Their first edit to the ] article (16:06, 15 October 2006, ) was merely to move a section I worked on to the bottom of the article and this directly following a difference of opinion (diff: ) the preceding days on ].
I tried to discuss it, but the user now also edited another unrelated article (]) – that I created – diff . ] 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== DaffyDuck619 ==

<span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> has been an issue for a few months now. He has generally been edit warring at {{la|Films considered the greatest ever}} and {{la|John Cena}} (the latter of which he has a ]. Here are just a few examples from the last few hours at John Cena about how these things generally occur:
#
#
# "See talk page"
# "Revered edits back, see talk page"
# "Somebody must be a sockpuppet of lil crazy thing"
While this was up at AIV, Yamaguchi stated:
<blockquote>Endorse block of the person above, perhaps a community ban is in order, but that should be discussed somewhere else. 07:26, 24 October 2006</blockquote>
Certainly, something must be done about this editor. Golbez had indefblocked him, pending that he come back and discuss things on his user talk (which he has), but he has just begun to repeat the same edits, the same disruption, and other such nonsense. Right now, he is sitting out a 48h 3RR block. —] (]) 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can someone please investigate {{user|1QUIner}}, he's making some strange edits to talk pages. --] 11:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:I have just reverted all those. But the history of his userpage is fascinating. In his he suspects himself of being a Sock of JzG. He later changes the name of who he is supposed to be a sock of. Definetly a vandal only account. ] 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::And already blocked. ] 11:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Help needed with copyvio policy dispute ==

I have been engaged in a lengthy correspondence with ]. The history is as follows:
* User posts three copyvio articles.
* I mark them as copyvios.
* They write back, unhappy about this. I explain why I did this, and explain why it is sometimes difficult to AGF in the case of multiple copyings, and express my relief that they are a good-faith editor.
* User apologises, rewrites two of them, I rewrite the other.
* I write back to them, thanking them for their good edits, and all is right with the world.
* Some time later, the user returns to my talk page, arguing the toss about whether their edits were a copyvio in the first place, and demanding that I show them how their text resembles the original text
* I show them, in a long and careful (and partially computer-aided) analysis of their text. (Summary: over 90% is either literally copied, with slight puntcuation changes, or lightly paraphrased from the original source)
* They take this as a personal affront, and advance a number of impassioned arguments about why they are right and I am wrong, wrong, wrong. (The correspondence is no longer of my talk page, but can be found here: )
* When asked for a second opinion, I invited them to take up my deletion of their content on ], but they have not done so.
* They complain about the "ABUSE OF ADMIN POWER". They complain about my "HALF-BAKED IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COPYRIGHT IS ALL ABOUT". They invite me to "Ask God whether you have indeed been honest to yourself, and had weighed the evidence fairly and squarely?" They claim to have "consulted my ex-company's lawyer" who has apparently told them that they are in the right.
* So far, so normal.

However, they are now advancing a new and potentially dangerous argument, in which they justify their literal copying under the principle that, since they are only copying a small part of the original work (for example, "only" a few paragraphs from a longer work), and are not doing it for profit, this qualifies as fair use. They are clearly convinced that they are in the right, and seem intent on continuing with their behavior.

At this point, I feel that rational argument has failed. They clearly feel that they are now legally entitled to copy as much stuff as they like into Misplaced Pages, regardless of what anyone else says, and consider my attempts to stop them from doing this as persecution. They feel that they have the law, their friend the lawyer, God, right and truth on their side. And they won't be told otherwise.

At this point, I seriously considered just blocking them as a serial copyvio artiste, and being done with it.
However, that edit was carried out before our lengthy discussion, and the user has not made any further copyvios since the discussion started. Indeed, they haven't done ''anything'' else other than carry on this lengthy discussion, in spite of my repeated attempts to bring it to a close.

However, if they are allowed to carry on with this, ] enforcement will become impossible, since they no longer regard the copying of whole sentences, or even paragraphs, from elsewhere as being evidence of potential copyright problems. Short of blocking, the only course of action I can see would be watch their every edit like a hawk from now on, and to clean up after them, forever. I don't have the time to do this, and nor, I believe, does anyone else.

At this point, I feel that their announcement of their intention to start ignoring the copyright policy has become, in effect, an announcement of an intention to disrupt Misplaced Pages. However, I am reluctant to simply LART-and-go, since I don't want them to have any justification for them regarding this as a personal campaign against them on my part.

I feel that I have exhausted every possible avenue with this user, short of blocking them. I'd like to believe that I've done so whilst remaining civil, and assuming good faith as far as possible. I would appreciate it if other people (preferably several other people) could take a look at this, just to be sure that this matter has been properly dealt with. -- ] 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:If he makes one more post which implies that he will continue violating copyright, whether on talk or posting copyvio, then he should be indef blocked, immediately, and told that until he promises to respect copyright policy he will not be unblocked. I'll do it myself if I happen to be around when that happens. We don't play games when it comes to copyright. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Update: Aaargh. After taking a second look, the fourth and last copyvio previously mentioned above, in ], wasn't theirs: it was introduced in an earlier edit. I've removed that from the comments above: the remaining three are still valid, as admitted by the user in their earlier comments. I'm also going to remove my text concerning it from their talk page, since they do not appear to have read it yet, and the last thing I want to do is to mistakenly accuse them of anything extra that they ''didn't'' actually do. However, the rest of my comments stand. -- ] 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm myself not quite sure about this aspect of copyright law - does it make sense to distinguish between "copyright violation" (a legal concept) and "plagiarism" (a concept of academic ethics)? In the case above, it seems quite clear that, even if the guy should be right and it's not the one, it's the other. Does plagiarism automatically fall under copyright terms according to US law? And if not, should Misplaced Pages add to its policies that plagiarism is just as unacceptable even if it should escape the legal definitions of "copyright"? Just a thought. ] ] 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==Travb==
This user has previously conspired against me off wiki by attempting to get in touch with users I have had disputes with . They are currently editing under two names Travb and RWV. They have begun an edit war on the article ] and so far have not stated why they are reverting. They originally said to see talk page, however they cited a straw poll as reason why a section without sources should be kept. As I pointed out to them and want to make clear here, the sections have sources stating they happened, however they do not have sources stating accusations of terrorism carried uot by the US, per the article title. It was decided long ago that section would have to meet this criteria, containing sources that actually allege terrorism, however Travb has initiated an edit war without providing these sources. I making this note here because I want it on record that I attempted to discuss on the talk page with him, and he has instead reverted without even adding the sources, or continuing the talk page discussion of it needing sources that accuse the US of terrorism. --]] 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:The user has now attempted to intimidate me instead of discussing by mentioning my previous arbcom ruling, which ] previously warned him of doing, stating Arbcom rulings are not act as scarlet letters. --]] 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::This user has a long history of using ] against other users, this is the third time he has reported me here on this same article, it would save a lot of people's time if he simply read the above:

:::<font color="crimson">'''This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department.'''</font> If you came here to complain about the actions of a user '''or administrator''', or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with ], then please follow the steps in ]. These include: ], ], and as a last resort ].

::Now that he has brought his complaints to the attention of ANI, I feel I must respond.

::It appears like ]/] is violating ], which if this edit war continues, I will have to report him to the arbitrators.

::There was a strawpoll which was mediated by a third party, ] in which the consensus, ], these sections ]/] is now deleting.

::I am editing '''different articles''' under the name RWV and Travb, which is permitted under ], I made no secret about this change either, and was very open about the change (]). I started editing under a different account for several reasons, but one of the reasons was because of ]/] harrasment, including ], which ] called "trolling". ] (]) 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::May I ask, Zer0faults, although it is clear that there is no question of you trying to hide the fact, why do you use the "User:NuclearUmpf" sockpuppet? Its a little confusing. ] 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::My attempts to hide it by linking my other profile in my name or by linking it on my userpage for NuclearUmpf? Or by it being included in my arbcom decision? Please stop your wikidrama. --]] 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I specifically noted you weren't trying to hide it, yet it is still confusing that you, Zer0faults, use a sockpupped called NuclearUmpf. I was politely asking why? ] 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Its noted above in my initial complaint, Travb attempting to ally people I disagree with via off wiki means, its been discussed already with an admin, and he has been warned about it. Please read the my first paragraph again if you do not understand. --]] 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Please refrain from personal attacks. I again ask an admin to look into the situation with Travb please. --]] 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think it's a valid question. --] 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::, that covers the issue. Or you could ask Thatcher131. Again I ask for an admins intervention in this user threatening me with arbcom etc. --]] 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Zerofaults adopted a new name to get a new start, offering on his talk page to tell admins privately his new user name. When he was called on it by Travb, and informed of his error by one of the arbitrators, he changed his sig and has been open about it since. That aspect of the case is a closed book in my opinion. Regarding his current allegations, I have previously said that arbitration provides remedies for disruptive behavior but is not a scarlet letter. The ] specifically warns users against baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction. (For precedent see one of the Deathrocker cases, where Deathrocker was blocked for edit warring but so was the user who was baiting him.) Unfortunately I am at work and can not analyze the specifics right now. If any other admin can examine the facts (is NuclearUmpf editing disruptively and is he being baited) a third party review would be appreciated. I will return to this probably after work. ] 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Amazingly, while I went and had what passes for a life around here for a few hours, the problem took care of itself, largely through the actions of a third editor who provided sources for a disputed section. Amazing how things work out when you follow policies. ] 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Question about importance ==

An article ], having inline citations from five different sources on the web, has been tagged unimportant for the following reason:
<blockquote>This looks like original research based on web-only sources. Aren't there any books or academic journals on the subject? If not, how is this important? ] (]) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>

Is this a valid reason for tagging an article as unimportant? ]] 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think this shows signs of actions specifically directed at one user. ] and ] seem to be following ] around, tagging articles ] has worked on, reverting tags which M has added, and generally trying to stir up problems (see ]). This is linked to past tagging by M on articles HD worked on and lots of sockpuppet acusations. It seems to me they are on the wrong side ] and ]. --] (]) 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::You've got that backwards. It has been Mattisse stalking first ], then ], then ] and to some extent myself. She used sockpuppets to stalk Rosencomet and 999, and is probably using ] now to continue to stalk ]. How long will the admins let this continue? I've put many of the involved article on my watchlist so can see the patterns. Have you looked? ] (]) 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::That is a past event which has been resolved with administrator intervention. We are now talking about current events such as , , removing/moving citation tags on various blues artist. Basically anything Matisse edits seems to have Ekajati quickly doing a dimetrically opposite edit. Comparing contributions for Mattise and Ekajati show remarkable similarity. --] (]) 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is over. Check out these edits by ]:

* - starts calling removing tags "vandalism" at the same time Mattisse does
*
*
* just as Mattisse on multiple articles she has created.
] (]) 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Would appreciate someone else looking at {{user|BubbaJubba}}. Appears to be leaving, and feels like s/he has been the victim of trolling, which is hardly the case IMO. Left a kind of nasty message on my talk page, etc. Not sure if deserving a block due to general incivility. I'm tired and cranky right now, so a 3rd opinion would be helpful. thanks. --] (]) 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like a troll with few edits, I find it unlikely they were trolled. Anyway, check messages that have been left on their talk page. More than likely just a vandal unhappy with things.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can we please get a temporary user-protect on ] ?? Thanks for taking a look. ] (]) 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Serial vandal blocked for one month - no page protection warranted. --<font color="3300FF">] (])</font> 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::I left a similar message at intervention and another admin protected. By the way, the attack was coordinated by 3 or 4 IP's, did you get them all? ] (]) 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==Jesús Gabaldón shenanigans==

Ever since ], a certain jazz/rock bass player from Spain has been giving me endless grief. Using a variety of anonymous IP's, Jesús has blanked my hilarious user page and my stimulating talk page 10-15 times each. Check out the edit histories --many of these IP's have already been blocked. Most recently, he signed up for an account, ]. After he resurrected the Jesús Gabaldón page in a foriegn langauge, I correctly . In retalliation, he .

I admire his relentlessness, but his behavior is becoming exhausting. I don't want to ask an admin for broad protection of my user page and talk page, because I want any anon user to feel free to add his 2 cents about my edits. But is there a way to ban him alone from editing my talk pages--maybe a IP range block or something.--] 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:I just reverted it again. Someone want to block the IP till he cools down? <b>]</b>]<b>]</b> 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Inappropriate editing ==
There is some bad behavior summarized at ] that I would like someone to investigate. Rather than defending his behavior, ] is accusing all the newer users there of being sock puppets, and I want my name cleared by somebody who is randomly appointed. --] 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi, I am the user DixiePixie is talking about. I agree that the incident must be investigated. There are at least 3 apparent sockpuppets in that discussion, ''way too many'' for it being ignored. ], who wrote the message above, is one of them. I have already ] an administrator on the matter, but no response until now. Please help. --] ∴ ] ] 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::] has not limited his accusations to users participating in that discussion. He had also failed to notify the new users of his accusations. I just found out today. One of the new users left Misplaced Pages out of disgust early in the discussion. --] 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Reverting or removing tags without fixing problem ==

], along with her cohorts, has repeatedly reverted or removed tags placed on articles without addressing the underlying problem between yesterday and today. I have warned her (and her cohorts) politely, as recommended above, not to do so.
*On ] she has done so 5 times between yesterday and today.
*On ] she had done so 3 times, ] 1 time, ] 1 time.
*On ] she has done so 3 times, ] 1 time, ] 1 time.
*On ] she has done so 3 times, ] 1 time, ] 1 time.

:In placing these tags, I am going by a long standing discussion with ].Please see recently (yesterday) on my talk page and ] was involved. : and
: This administrator :has been very clear and consistent over time.

I was told above that if this persisted, it constituted vandalism. I would like to report it has such. ]] 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:My dear Mattisse. You are simply misinformed. I've removed an inappropriate tag "unsourced", from articles that listed their sources. That tag is inappropriate in that case. I've moved the appropriate tag, not removed it. Please don't mischaracterize what has occurred. What is happening is that you are tagging in an intentionally annoying and serial manner in violation of ]. You have annoyed several editors in doing so. They don't agree with you. You refuse to really discuss it with anyone, despite there requests for you to do so, but simply revert to "your way" right or wrong, without discussion. Then you try to tar others with your own brush. Why not do something more constructive? ] (]) 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'd like to add that although ] is acting with best intentions, this has been a problem in the past and a number of her sockpuppets (see ]) have been indef blocked for mass tagging of articles. There have been two sockpuppet checks conducted ( and ) that resulted in blocks, and a third that didn't . I'm not rationalizing any behavior on the part of ] and ] (especially removing valid tags), but perhaps it sheds some light on why other editors are wary of Mattisse's tagging activities.

::Additionally, I would not group ] in with the others. His involvement with Mattisse is similar to mine - we first noticed her when she began tagging a number of articles we have on our watchlists as part of various projects. Her replies to questions of her motivation/strategy for tagging have mostly amounted to "The rules say I can!" despite other editors making the point that it can be disruptive. --<font color="3300FF">] (])</font> 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Please check the edit histories of each article to see what happened. Again I ask you to check
::: and
:::
:::Also, please check comments under '''Question about importance''' above which relate directly to this issue:
:::
:::Thank you! ]] 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:I would not normally raise it on this page, but tagging along with the discussion, I have found myself in conflict with the same user over a blues page. ] has a reference, to a book. After some other edits, and some edit warring over the addition of an "unsourced" tag, Matisse has added a swathe of "citation needed" tags, with the commment "added citation needed tags - please do not remove without addressing problem as doing so is considervanalizm as Ekajati, Notinasnaid & Anger22 have done previously". I would remove them, because there is a reference and no indication that the reference does NOT apply, and no previous history before today (on this article) of inline citations. However, I don't want to do what would be considered vandalism. I would welcome guidance, in passing, from people already involved with or looking over this dispute (I realise content disputes per se don't belong here)." ] 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the edit histories of each article to see what happened. Again I ask you to check
: and
:
Also, please check comments under '''Question about importance''' above which relate directly to this issue:
:
:Thank you! ]] 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I put ] in the same category because of that user's involvement with my name over time. :e.g.
and because Anger22 makes assumptons about my behavior that are unjustified without evidence:
:
:
Furthermore, ] is hardly unbiased. First, where is the evidence that I answered in the manner he characterized above? I have not had contact with any of these people for months, if ever. I don't believe I ever had a conversation with ] until yesterday. His talk pages contain conversations about his personal life to Anger22, so he is not neutral. Secondly, the following took place recently on his talk page:
:
So he is part of the "group". ]] 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, please consider the pattern of harrassment on ]'s part. The user was instrumental in disrupting my life with this incident:
:
and the user and his group have continued this pattern for months. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I have done nothing wrong since my original mistake. Please allow me to function on Misplaced Pages without constant harassment. Thank you. ]] 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:P.S. I apologize for repetitious postings but editing conflicts confused me. Please overlook them. Thank you. ]] 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::]. ] (]) 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==="Citation Needed" in ]===
About the many "citation needed" tags on this article, rather than fighting over where they're really needed or not, the best thing seems to be to actually provide the requested citations. It's not that hard, most of them seem to be on actual fact issues that should be possible to look up and cite. Here, let me do one, just to show you how easy it is. Note, though, that all that I know about The Blues is that they come after The Greens and before The Indigos. :-)
# Requested citation: "Hooker recorded over 100 albums and lived the last years of his life in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he licensed a nightclub to use the name Boom Boom Room, after one of his hits."
# ] for: "John Lee Hooker" "Boom Boom Room"
# Get: lots of results that I don't know from Adam, but the first one is a link to the BBR page itself, and on is an excerpt from a ] book. That's a published book from a very well known series, a pretty good ].
# And what do you know - reading the reference the sentence in our article is wrong. He didn't license a nightclub to use the name, he founded the nightclub!
# Rewritten sentence: "Hooker recorded over 100 albums. He lived the last years of his life in the San Francisco Bay Area, where, in 1997, he opened a nightclub called "John Lee Hooker's Boom Boom Room", after one of his hits.<sup></sup>"
# Ref: ^ Adapted from: ''Blues ]'', by Lonnie Brooks, Cub Koda, Wayne Baker Brooks, Dan Aykroyd, ISBN 0-7645-5080-2, August 1998
# External link: San Francisco nightclub founded by Hooker

I'll go add that to the article. Not so hard - 7 steps, a few minutes each at most. And the article is clearly much improved, useful link, additional reference, correction of minor inaccuracy. It's not as if by adding the tags Matisse is deleting stuff, he's just questioning facts that really should be possible to verify. John Lee Hooker is a well documented person, so it should be possible to do the same for most of the other requested citations without making a fight out of it.
] <sup>]</sup> 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Folks, there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about what citations are. Read ] for complete information, but in summary, when claims are made it's necessary to cite the claim's source ''at the sentence in which the claim is made''. I believe part of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that WP:CITE says that an article can use any citation method. However, a list of references ''is not a citation method''. They are half of a citation method, but the other half is the notes within the text stating which source claims were taken from.

As an example, the citation tag on ] placed was necessary and appropriate. Removal of the tag by Anger22, Ekajati, and Notinasnaid was wrong and shows a misunderstanding of WP:CITE. On the other hand, Sir Isaac Lime and AnonEMouse added citations for various claims, which was helpful. Mattisse added specific "citation needed" tags to particular claims that were especially in need of citation.

Mattisse has never tried to force citations for every sentence in an article. Rather, tags are placed on articles that have ''absolutely no citations''. Often, a contributor will add some citations, and Mattisse will add a few specific "citation needed" tags to claims that are felt to be especially in need of citation. This is the way things should work, and if we can just get rid of this "freakout phase" of the cycle everything will be great.

I'll summarize. Articles need citations. References are not citations. Do not remove tags requesting citations without adding citations. ] 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:] is a '''guideline''', not '''policy''', and there is apparent consensus on ] and ] that is inappropriate on (some of) those articles. This may not be applicable to the specific problem here, but ] is disputed in some contexts. <s> I'm afraid ] is bordering on ], as well.</s> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:38, October 24, 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::] is a guideline to teach people ways they can cite sources. However, citing sources is ''mandated'' by ]. I've looked at ], and it says this about not using inline citations:
:::''There are a few cases when it is not necessary or helpful to provide in-line citations. Most commonly this is for short, technical articles which can be written using only two or three sources: a primary source and a review article or textbook. In this case, a short "References" section at the end of the article suffices. An example of this sort of article is ].''
::That is not relevant in this case, and in other cases it encourages the inline citation of sources. The biographical articles in question here need to cite sources. ] 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Just because ] is almost certainly wrong doesn't mean that the complaintant and ] are correct (or ]). But I don't know much about this sort of article. I have enough trouble dealing with situations in which the source material is in Japanese, and we pretty much have to trust the editor's translation..... &mdash; ] | ] 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

''Folks, there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about what citations are.'' &mdash; Yes, but it is not the one put forward. A ] is the raw information necessary to uniquely identify and to locate a source. For (say) a book it is (at minimum) the author, publisher, title, and date of the book. The links between the citations and specific content are matters of style. But they are links from the content to the citations. They are not the citations themselves. An article without such links is not lacking citations. The citations identifying the sources are there. It is simply that the article isn't spoon-feeding to the reader the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article. (Adding such links from sections, or even paragraphs, to the relevant citations ''in general'' improves an article.)<p>] is a ''style guideline'', discussing (in addition to the Misplaced Pages house style of citations themselves) the Misplaced Pages ] for such links, which encompasses &lt;ref&gt;, Harvard referencing, and others.<p>The ''policy'' is ], which merely requires that sources ''be'' cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. ] 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd like to insert a comment. I haven't read most of this conversation, so apologies if I'm abusing a deceased horse, but re: ''"About the many "citation needed" tags on this article, rather than fighting over where they're really needed or not, the best thing seems to be to actually provide the requested citations."''
:::That's true. There may be legitimate concerns about the factualness of the article, and providing sources (inline or not) improves the quality of any article. However, I'd like to note that it's possible for an editor to be unkind strewing many <sup></sup> tags all at once. The length of the tag, though relatively small, is still obtrusive, especially in great quantity. Partially, it's supposed to be obtrusive, to encourage editors to get off their backsides and source this one particular fact or sentence.
:::Instead of adding such a tag en masse though, a good faith editor should either add an ] at the top of the article/section (which may not encourage editors enough to source particular facts) or add a few <sup></sup>s and ''at least make an effort to find some of the facts'' him/herself.
:::Nothing except derogatory material about a living person needs to be sourced immediately. It can be done over time. So don't do the easy, unsightly, unkind thing and strew the tag. Instead, add 3 or 4. If you want to source some yourself, do it. It shows you're willing to make the same effort you're asking of others. It's not necessary, but I argue that adding 3 tags and checking back in a week is far preferable to adding dozens and making it virtually unreadable.
:::Also, I'd like to prpose making it smaller. Some people said <sup></sup> (question mark) wouldn't be easily readable on all fonts, but something smaller and still differentiable from already sourced tags such as <sup></sup>.
:::If there's a better place to discuss these aspects, let me know. ] 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Propose indefinate block of ], and a look into his buddy ] ==

This has been going on and on. Newser was on the 21st for repeated harassment of ], and continued it when he got off. He has therefore been blocked again. I'm getting sick of reading this. TV Newser is repeatedly adding sock puppet tags to Tecmobowl's userpage, and accusing him of being a vandal/sock without evidence and despite warning. His to the latest block was far from dignified. While everything Tecmobowl has done hasn't necessarily been to code either, that still doesn't seem like a reasonable excuse for this.

As for Poncho's Disco, see ], as well as Poncho's . The user seems to be cooperating with TV Newser in this; Newser showed up in the AFD some 14 minutes after it started, and as his first contribution after the block. I'm guessing they know one another outside of the wiki.

I know there are discussions on this already. There is even a mediation (which only Tecmobowl has shown any interest in participating in). I don't think the hoopla is necessary; we should just block the troll and be done with it. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed on both measures. --] 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. Three's the magic number, I've blocked TV Newser indefinitely. I'm not sure about Ponch's Disco. Clearly some highly problematic behaviour, but I'm not sure whether he merits an indefinite block either on account of being a sockpuppet or being completely intolerable. I'd be interested to see how he reacts to Newser's block. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:I support the indefinite block. The block I originally instated was supposed to give Newser time to reflect, not time to plan more mischief. His last edits indicate he has no interest in building an encyclopedia. I am not certain about Ponch, though it does seem suspicious. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:TV Newser has needed an indef block for a long time, really. He's been little but trouble since I came across him, which was within a few hours of his account creation. There is, and I say this only tentatively, a possibility that in fact he is a sock himself of a well-establisher socket, since he share linguistic traits with a particularly unpleasant user who I blocked long ago. Add to this the fact that his 'recommendations' on who I should block tend usually to be the reverse of what I actually decide to do and well....I may have allowed us to be...you know whatted. I've had my eye on Ponch's Disco for some time, and if he puts the outside edge of a toenail wrong, he'll be gone for good. -] - ] 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Good stuff. I'm glad we came to a solid agreement here; it's been long enough. <s>I'll also keep an eye on Poncho, just in case.</s> -- ] <small>(])</small> 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Or I won't. He's been indef'd as well. Can't say I disagree too much; the creation and subsequent AfD'ing of self-created articles (the American Card whatsit one) actually fits the "MO" of the very vandal that TV Newser was accusing Tecmobowl of being. Odd, that. -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] and ] related articles ==

{{user|Gardez Bien}} has been waging a one-man POV edit war on ], ], ], and ], insisting on placing in the introductory paragraphs of all of these articles that the state of Maryland donated the land that is now D.C. A discussion on ] has shown a consensus against including this information in the introduction as opposed to purely the history section, based on the current relevance of that information. Gardez Bien has nevertheless continued to unilaterally edit war, and accused those who disagree with him of being POV Virginia and Southern boosters on that talk page, as well as in edit summaries. Edits such as and show how absurd and non-constructive his position is, as he is insisting on defining the Maryland topics by the connection to D.C. Someone with no prior involvement with these topics needs warn him against disruption and POV trolling, watch him for 3RR violations, and block accordingly. ] 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:He's at it again., ] 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== User unwilling to accept messages or discuss on user talk page ==

{{user|Mikkalai}} apparently refuses to accept messages or discuss issues on his talk page. Here's a revert of a recent message I left , with no followup on my talk page or the article (which might be acceptabel if he just wanted to keep is talk page clean). To me, this level of non-responsiveness is uncivil. I recall a discussion about this practice a few months ago, but don't recall the consensus. Thoughts? --] (]) 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== User adding content to XennoBB talk page ==

Lately, XennoBB talk page has been "cluttered" with link spam by ], bad comments regarding some GPL violations which never occured (we're in process of identifying the user and pursuing legal charges against him), and the only "sources" he quoted are a forum he uses currently (no problem in adding content there) and a blog. Surely, this is not the case where I can add something on my blog then quoting it on WikiPedia for example, right? The comments must come from a legitimate and verifiable source, right? Well, this is not the case with our vandal.
If the Misplaced Pages admins' idea of democracy is that everybody can add whatever content they wish to a software talk page(a free GPL redistributed software, which doesn't get any money from it) well, I'd say it's a serious problem. Hopefully the messages can be removed. Thank you. - ] 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Firstly, the user has done nothing outright 'wrong' and is certainly not a vandal, although his comments may certainly be incorrect. However, there are far better ways to deal with incorrect comments than suggesting they are "full of ####" and removing the comments you don't agree with. Leave the comments there and try to start talking things out in a civilized manner. Additionally, ] against wikipedia users such as the one you made above are absolutely not allowed, and if you make any more you will be blocked from editing. --] 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Okey so If I understand correctly, I can add ANY unverified content to any wikipedia talk page and the owner/editor of that page must prove that my statement is wrong? Good thing to know ... And my legal threat was not concerning wikipedia since it's not regarding this comment, it's because the user tried to hack our website on numerous occasions. And it wasn't even a legal threat, but heh, who am I to decide ... -] 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::: Since nobody bothered to reply to my last statement, I consider it correct. I think that's a violation of the "somebody being innocent until proved otherwise" principle; I wonder if such content was added to an administrator talk page or a page monitored by him, any measures would have been taken against the editor. I bet there would be, but clearly, trashing the name of a legitimate GPL software does not qualify for the same measures. It's a pretty sick sight to watch ... Don't bother telling me I violated the ] rules or such, any administrator who read my first complaint clearly violated the ] and ] rules, which you so dearly "enforce". I kindly ask such a "neutral" administrator to block/remove my account because do not want my name associated anymore with Misplaced Pages and its unjust decisions. - a disgusted ex-user -] 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: Hello. As I'm involved, I'm telling some words. 1st, excuse my english, I'm French not English... (Osgiliath told me he didn't understand me so I'm excusing myself again). 2nd : I recognize that I was too rude and that I didn't respect exactly the "civility rule" of WP so I apologize for this point. The rest of the discussion is on the talk page of the article XennoBB where I was saying something that is sourced with blog and forum assertions (like source code comparison) so it might continue on the XennoBB talk page ! I do not wish to attack personnaly Osgiliath, I'm just telling that is "program" is not OK. So... thanks for reading me. and I apologize again for breaking the "civility rule". ] 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] blocked ]'s IP address for 48 hours due to it being "used to avoid 3RR detection". I have two problems with this block, which I've brought up on the talk page but since the user appears to be offline I'll mention it here too. Firstly, Kilz made one non-logged in edit (to ]) and acknowledged responsibility for it 6 minutes later, without any prompting that I can see, so it hardly counts as attempting to avoid 3RR detection, or even using a sockpuppet. Secondly, it was that user's first edit to that page for more than 24 hours, so I cannot see how 3RR comes into it at all. If there's something I'm missing here I'd be glad to hear of it, but otherwise I cannot understand the reasoning behind this block. Thanks. --] 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:The issue needs further attention as it looks like a larger issue with ]. He is very fast to close Sock reports and tagging the accounts as blocked. But he does not remove the tags if he changes his mind and unblocks, or as in one case even does not block the account in question. Just doesn not make sense. ] 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Another IP puppet of ] ==

{{User|Zarbon}} was blocked for 2 months for 3RR. Only a few hours after his block, he used an IP adress to continue his POV pushing, and that adress was also blocked for 2 months. Now he has ''another'' IP; {{IPvandal|149.68.168.154}}. If you look at the page histories of ], ], and ], you'll see other socks (ex: {{User|Recoome}}) that he's using. This kind of behavior has been going on for months. I think an indef would be suitable here.--]] ] 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:He's also using ] and ] to avoid the block. ] 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Time to take it to CheckUser. --] 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Can you block the current IPs while the chekuser is being done/filled out? I'm trying to have a decent meal here but I have to revert all his edits.--]] ] 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Reverse dictionary attack? ==

Between 19:56 and 20:13 Misplaced Pages time, {{user|169.204.238.174}} requested that my password be reset over 150 times, at times around once every two seconds. I'm concerned that perhaps the new password is not generated randomly enough (and so collisions could be found with a bot), or maybe there is a plan to mailbomb people using this facility. Either way I thought that this should be brought to your attention. ] 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Mass e-mails happen all the time, and we already know about them :) You don't get a new password everytime you get one of those e-mails. You have to autoconfirm this by clicking on this link in the e-mail, then it becomes your password. If you never confirm these e-mails and you delete them, you never change your password. ''semper fi'' — ] 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::The emails I receive are like this:

::Someone (probably you, from IP address 169.204.238.174) requested that we send you a new Misplaced Pages login password for en.wikipedia.org.
::The password for user "Dave" is now "********". You should log in and change your password now.
::If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password
::] 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Yep, I got 200 of those in one minute once :\ I think you'll find in those e-mails a thing that says to confirm this 'click here' kind of message, right? Well, as long as you donn't click it, and do as the e-mail says ("you may ignore this message and continue using your old password"), you should be fine. ''semper fi'' — ] 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Thing is, I was wondering if someone has found a loophole such that they can make a reasonable guess what the password will be changed to. Not being familiar with the mediawiki software, there may be some kind of attack possible. I can't think of any other reason to do it, except as a bizarre attempt at mailbombing. ] 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::I believe it has been previously established that one request overwrites the previous one so no matter what at any one time you only have two usable passwords. &ndash; ]] 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yep, but if you do a reset, then try a password, then another reset, and so on? ] 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Since this keeps coming up, why not throttle the password request function down to once a day/hour/fortnight? -- '']']'' 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Talk to the devs. I've been told such a fix has been created, but not implimented. --] 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Hot off the <s>presses</s> mailing list - . This has now been fixed. Hooray! ] ] 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== {{User|Francis Schonken}}: knowingly filing a false 3RR/sock puppet report ==

This reports {{User|Francis Schonken}} as knowingly filing a false 3RR/sock puppet report re the Republic page (and what was verging on a 3R war), based on what he has made to appear as such (in a Checkuser report), but which is refuted by viewing that page's history. Therein, all will note that I failed to realize that I had signed out, subsequently resigned in, and made a new edit with a notice to that effect. He had to know and indeed knew all this, and chose to file a false report.

further, this user is falsely accusing abusive language by leaving out the words surrounding the alleged abuse, i.e., context. none of this is 'abusive' anyway. this user is also relentlessly badgering and otherwise harrassing me, which can be noted on the Republic talk page. i'm requesting a block of this guy, until he can be made to act like a civilized individual. ] 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Steve, the RFCU seems to have been unneeded as you claimed that edit, but there does appear to be a 3RR violation there on your part. The same changes are made 4 times. What is the falsity in that claim? ] 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Ah, ok, I found it. The first listed should properly be:
::
:: The first edit listed by Francis is:
:: (as Stevewk)
:: is really:
::
:: Which was...
::
:: Ok. Got it. The first and last edits Stevewk actually made in the four sequence are greater than 24 hrs apart. The cited "first revert" skips several intervening posts which place the actual time outside 24 hrs, and the first edit in the sequence (first listed above) isn't a revert.
:: I don't know if Francis' selection of the skip-several-edits first comparison was on purpose or accidental, but the 4RR claim is bogus.
:: ] 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Ok, I was just looking through recent changes and saw this user. I went to his contributions and found that every edit is to his userspace and his userboxes, even some of which I find offensive or not in good taste. I find it strange that this user's first and only edits this far are userbox creation and too his userspace. Does anyone else think this is very suspicious? ''semper fi'' — ] 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Sock of a userbox fan created to store userboxes probably, only thing they could really be violating is ], other wise unless they edit else where you can't really do anything.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::I was going to wait and see if, as a new user, he did anything productive, but it does appear that he is not actually new. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::: He is doing all his edits at ]. On that page, he says ''This is a userpage directory of "beliefs" userboxes. It is intended to track migrations to and help archive and organize userboxes in userspace. The corresponding directory, ] was deleted.

::: I don't see any violation here (perhaps it's subtle?); he's clearly only playing around in his own space. He could be preparing for something, I suppose; my sense is that wikipedia administrators don't often do preemptive strikes. ] | ] 15:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:It's not so subtle. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. He's playing around not really in "his" user space, but in everybody's. Way back when, we discussed how to make rules governing those people who don't do anything but build in user talk space. No one could figure out a rule, but it's pretty clear that you've got to be working on Misplaced Pages in some way to get that lovely storage space. If he's an unlabelled alternate account, then he's a user who isn't editing Misplaced Pages. That's ''not'' good. ] 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] & ] ==

Can someone monitor {{user|Rexisfed}} for me? Ever since the article ] was put up for deletion earlier today, he has continuously removed the AFD tag, replacing it with angry messages. I have already warned him up to {{tl|drmafd4}}, but I will be signing off soon, so I probably won't be around to watch his next action. ] 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'll do the best I can to moniter it. :) ''semper fi'' — ] 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

After I proposed his article for deletion, he vandalized my userpage, and then did it again with {{user|Rymysterio3}} --] 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|Cmr924}} and {{user|24.7.214.28}} ==

{{user|Cmr924}} and {{user|24.7.214.28}} these two or same users are on my talk page "demanding" I explain why they can't remove cited criticism. {{user|Cmr924}} removed warnings on his page. They appear to be the same users it you look at my talk. An adminstrator should step in and deal with his issues as he doesn't want to listen to me. ] 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo has not helped at all. I want to know why the last edit I made, as user Cmr924, is in violation of vandalism. I clearly had good intentions. As the article stands, it is very biased. It is very one-sided, and reflects negatively. This is not something Misplaced Pages is about at all. White washing? So, trying to fix its inherent bias is now white washing? It would be white washing if it was a BALANCED entry. Also, I simply did not login, although I thought I had. This is why my IP Address showed up first.

Arbustoo also claimed I was a bunch of different users. I invite you to investigate that, as I only have one username and that is Cmr924.

=={{user|Dralwik}}==

{{user|Dralwik}} is going through wikipedia and changing <nowiki>] to ] or ]</nowiki>. Chicago, Illinois is a functioning redirect and does not improperly reflect the city. The user has been told twice to stop changing, but continues. Think someone could make a swing by the user's talk page and add an admin voice to stop with the pointless changes.;) --] 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Why? He's not doing any harm. If you have an editorial dispute, discuss it with him. Administrators aren't content police. --] 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::It's not a content issue though. The issue is the server cost of making these changes. The cost in server load of making the changes is thousands of times more than the cost of letting them stay and just letting the redirect work like it should. Changing functioning redirects is completely unnecessary and wasteful. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Um, right. Of course. Where did the developers provide those figures? Or did you do profiling? ] - ] 10:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::FWIW, I haven't researched where that information comes from, but it has been stated like Scm83x says on ] for a long while. ] ] 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Ah, I see. Still, I'm not aware there's an actual server performance problem being caused by all these people making minor unnecessary style edits : this page seems mainly there to explain that if you are doing it because you think it ''helps'' server performance, you are wrong, not to tell people not to do it for aesthetic reasons. ] - ] 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of no logical situation where the right side of a piped link would be longer than the left one. However, changing <tt>]</tt> to <tt>], ]</tt> would be quite logical, as it gives the reader the benefit of an extra link, with no sacrifice on the wiki-text end. Generally speaking, don't ever pipe a link just for the hell of it. If you think a redirect should be bypassed, rephrase the sentence to accomodate an unpiped direct link. If that can't be done, you might be better off canceling the edit. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 11:37, Oct. 25, 2006 (UTC)

== Legal threats from user:Diane S ==

{{User|Diane S}}, in real life a moderator of the forums at ], wrote to an administrator:
*''Yankee Gal, you are being reported for the locking of an article that contains links to '''libelous websites''', you have locked the article after including former edits of atheists/ propagandists, and liberal/atheists linking and editing this article. We will proceed with legal recourses, no not a threat, a fact] 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)''
This appears to me to be a clear legal threat. I posted this note to her talk page:
*''You may be aware of ]. In any case, it'd be best if you do not engage in further edits to Misplaced Pages until your legal recourses have been completed. I'm sure you understand that it would not be appropriate to be participating in this project while you are involved in legal action against it and its members. -] 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)''
Does this merit a block? -] 02:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I think so. I'll take care of it. --] 02:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes. Legal threats screw everything up, and should be treated fairly strongly. The user is also an SPA, repeatedly trying to push her own obvious bias on only a couple of articles. -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

: Clearly, good call on your part. ] ] 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::Please everyone keep an eye on related topics (e.g. ]) and sock/meat puppets, several of which are still active on both articles as whitewashers/criticism-removers. ] ] 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Is ]? No? How about ]? Still not right? Then maybe ]!—] (]) 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, and I forgot to ask about ].—] (]) 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Exactly. And it looks like ]'s article may also need protection soon if "they" persist. ] ] 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::And now ]. I'm catching just a whiff of ] upwind. ] ] 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Request for assistance ==

I have been drawn into a sockpuppet, etc. mess I want no part of surrounding ]. Said user, who has an apparent history of tagging articles for various reasons with little or no reason, and has aggravated various people with said actions while refusing to read anything associated with the article in terms of references, rather simply posting annoying tags, etc. The article in question is ], which Timmy12 has repeatedly tagged despite the fact the article has numerous inline citations and references listed at the bottom of the article from a variety of sources. After disputing Timmy12's tagging, they have labelled me as part of some cabal of people they've had an ongoing set of issues with I have nothing to do with. Timmy12 has now crossed any sense of good faith by reverting a significant number of inline citations I made to the page earlier today, just to attempt address an issue they raised I felt never existed in the first place, merely to repost their own citation tag that was inappropriate to begin with. I and others, from reviewing the history of Timmy12, have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with this person, who may or may not be a sockpuppet. The last revert by Timmy12 can be seen as nothing but vandalism, and this person should be suspended from continuing this kind of behavior. I read commentaries on cites, etc. from a link Timmy12 left on my talk page, but they don't follow what they insisted I read. Any and all assistance/advice you can provide would be helpful, this kind of behavior is absurd. I'd add, in this particular case, the material on the page has been verified not only via the numerous sources cited, but by Joseph Byrd himself, who has commented directly to me and others on the material provided, is a person I have known for some years and have published material about. I should also add I write for a major newspaper group and am a professional writer and researcher by trade. Thank you. ] 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Block of NBGPWS ==

I have blocked {{userlinks|NBGPWS}} for a month due to ongoing issues about civility as posted at the personal attack noticeboard and based on the fact that NBGPWS had already been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins in the last two months. NBGPWS was offered to be unblocked to post an Rfc or go and file a case with arbcom and declined. He is now posting links to what he claims is misuse of ] by a third party for their political gain and I am requesting a neutral admin look at the following link and see if there is any merit to his claims. Thanks.--] 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:No comment on the link; general comment on the block--support as he has been doing a lot of trolling recently. Not sure about the duration as it seems a big escalation from a week, but I trust your judgement. ] 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Having looked at the article he is upset about, the content he wanted left in may not ''technically'' be a violation of BLP since the persons aren't named, but it is definitely un-encyclopedic axe-grinding, and its removal certainly doesn't justify acting out rather than following the normal dispute resolution processes for article content. ] 12:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional harrassment by this user
*Vandalism:
** user just keeps adding it. And to others pages , that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries when adressing me as a means of intimidation. , there own user history also reflects this
*Insults and labeling:
**deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" -
**Wiki Stalinists" -
*Inappropriate comments:
**"WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!"
**:Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved"
--]] 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==Request roll-back anon's multiple spamming==
Hi, could an Admin consider doing your "roll-back" option on ]'s dumping of external links into multiple pages for a single website's articles on acupuncture please (counts as ]). Thanks ] <sup> ] </sup> 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Done. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 07:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) LOL I started at the top and Physicq210 started at the bottom of the contributions list and we met in the middle. Done. ]]] 07:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought the time spent writing a paragraph of text (and waiting for somebody to read it) would be much greater than making 15 reverts. — ] 07:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:No big deal, is it? --] (]) 08:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::Some of us have slow dial up connection, so yes 15 reverts does take time, and any way I did not think there was any race to perform the reverts (also I did rather need to leave to get to work). So yes, if a nice Admin such as Physicq210 (thank you) can do this with a single click, so much the easier is the overall effort on the wikipedia editorialship. If at any point I gain Admin or rollback privelages, then even easier too :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==Enormous sockpuppet army wiped out==
After seeing some vandalism tonight, I ran a checkuser on an account and discovered an *enormous* sockpuppet army massing. Come to find out it happened to be the range used by Blu Aardvark (72.160.0.0/16). I blocked over 100 of the easily recognizable ones (see ] - almost everyone one of them was one I blocked tonight). I blocked that range for 6 months - anon editing and account registration, but not regular users.

Here's another 45 or so accounts that may or may not be Blu's. I suspect the vast majority are, but didn't block them for fear of hitting a bystander:

* {{user|Alightdirigible}}
* {{user|AnneFeastClark}}
* {{user|Anydoc}}
* {{user|Athalia}}
* {{user|Bear712}}
* {{user|Big bob 07}}
* {{user|Bobobo760}}
* {{user|Boogielove}}
* {{user|Boundaryman}}
* <s>{{user|Burnt Siena}}</s> - confirmed Blu sock. ] 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
* {{user|Candymanl4b}}
* {{user|Charlesdayhoff}}
* {{user|Cmuniga}}
* {{user|DRc}}
* {{user|DavidBrowne}}
* {{user|Daydreamerz43}}
* {{user|Dragonfly85}}
* {{user|Dt61}}
* {{user|Eileenmclain}}
* {{user|Fenryr}}
* {{user|Goozie212}}
* {{user|Grimsby85}}
* {{user|Hankpac}}
* {{user|Hnolde}}
* {{user|Ice Lollies}}
* {{user|Iwrite1969}}
* {{user|KTBranson}}
* {{user|KaloniceStarfire}}
* {{user|Kodes}}
* {{user|Ldonegan}}
* {{user|Lonca38}}
* {{user|MAB88}}
* {{user|Mark N Ruggles Sr.}}
* {{user|Maryjuneb}}
* {{user|Mkolerich}}
* {{user|Patricke44}}
* {{user|Phil 737}}
* {{user|Ratpack1964}}
* {{user|Rdc1103}}
* {{user|Rerelovesbacon}}
* {{user|Ronin-man}}
* {{user|Sinnocent1}}
* {{user|Sugarbear61}}
* {{user|Teh nab}}
* {{user|Tim card}}
* {{user|Tony 747}}

I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on them. ] 09:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Modified list to display talk/contribs encase any get any messages.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 09:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:{{vandal|Cmuniga}}
:{{vandal|Dt61}}
::Currently unblocked vandals from above list.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 09:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::Hmmmm, tagging them and making sure they were all blocked sure was fun - took myself, Raul and aksi forever to do it! Cheers, <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">''']]]'''</span> 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reran through the list and I found a few more probables ] 10:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

* {{user|Kararowe}}
* {{user|Zak2023}}
* {{user|Bevsmith}}
* {{user|Bob`}}
* {{user|Cfranklu}}
* {{user|Anydoc}}
* {{user|Mkolerich}}
* {{user|Spinnertabi}}

::You should probably post the diffs of this conversation to Blu's arbitration cases. ] 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and blocked a lot of the obvious ones that follow the typical pattern of Blu Aardvark's sockpuppet names. Some already had vandalism but weren't yet indef-blocked. --] 20:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Copyvio on ] - does anything need to be done? ==

I just blanked the plot synopsis of this movie because it is identical to its IMDb entry. Does anything else need to happen? ] 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
: You could leave a note for the person who added the copyvio material, or go through his contribs to see if s/he's done it in other articles. (Sometimes people go through and add IMDB stuff to a whole batch of movie articles at once.) In this case, though, he hasn't contributed since August, so I wouldn't bother with the note. And I looked at his other contribs, and they look okay. :-) ] 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::OK, cool. I was wondering if it is supposed to be purged from the history? ] 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::: We do that if the copyright holder asks us to, but not by default, in cases like this. If the entire article was copyvio, we'd delete the whole thing. ] 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::K, thankx.] 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Jack Cox - Daniel Brandt's plagiarism data ==

{{vandal|Jack Cox}} has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since February 2005 and has some ten thousand edits under his belt.

Daniel Brandt's recent plagiarism report uncovered that Jack had added text without attribution from the Utah History Encyclopedia, which is not a public domain resource, to the article on Utah governor ]. Following Brandt's lead I've found that Jack Cox also plagiarized from the same source in writing articles on ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] - all of them Utah governors. In each case I've deleted the articles and restored pre-Jack versions where there were any.

I have checked a few of Jack's other contributions and found one more plagiarism incident, ], which was not from the same source. Obviously I have made nothing like a comprehensive check of Jack's thousands of edits, most of which don't have an edit summary. '''It his highly likely that multiple copyright violations inserted by him are still out there.'''

Looking at Jack's talk page I notice that OrphanBot doesn't like him and the feeling is I get the feeling that this contributor habitually doesn't exercise enough caution in handling copyrighted material. Please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. We would of course be fully justified in banning him but if someone could engage him productively, get him to clean up his act and help in identifying old boo-boos that could be even more valuable.

I'd also like to encourage more admins to get involved with the project on identifying serial plagiarists at ]. We've already found multiple longstanding copyright violations starting with the data from Brandt and looking at other contributions by the same editors. ] 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*{{user|RJNeb2}} seems to be a serial offender, too. We do need more admins on this... it seems some of these people have been quietly plagiarizing for months and even years. --] 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==Stalking, vandalism, possible sockpuppetry evasion of block by ]==
{{vandal|Timmy12}} appears to be stalking ] and vandalising Rosencomet's additions of citations by removing the citations. In the past, ] also stalked and tagged articles by Rosencomet. There is reason to believe that Timmy12 is a sock of Mattisse currently being used to evade a block for 3RR. -] (]) 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm Rosencomet, and yes, it seems that Timmy12 is actively stalking me, following behind me and eliminating the citations I post on articles I have either created or contributed to. He characterizes them as commercial, although I have asked respected Misplaced Pages editors who have been here much longer than I if I am doing anything wrong, and they say I am not, and have in fact reversed his efforts several times. Evidentially, I am not the only person having problems with this individual.

:The most recent examples have been elimination of citations for speakers and presenters appearing at an important event, one that constitutes a credit for them, that is three years old. The web page referred to advertises no new event nor any product, although one could visit the rest of the website from there if one was interested, but the purpose of the citation was to support the fact of the participation in the event, not to promote anything. In fact, they were mostly reactions to others (if they were others) claiming that I must provide citations when I state such facts in an article.

:Except for the declaration that he has "taken down a commercial link", he has given no justification for his actions nor attempted to contact me or my talk page, yet the moment I reverse his actions he repeats them. I see that he has done similar vandalism to others, yet I find little or no contributions by him among the articles of Misplaced Pages. I'm relatively new at this, yet I've created and/or contributed to about 100 articles, revisiting most of them often with additional data. I've encountered several very helpful folks in this microcosm, and have been pleased to see stubs grow and expand into useful and informational articles. People like Timmy12, it seems to me, ruin it for the rest. I'm not sure what I should do at this point. Please advise.] 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think there is a need for a CheckUser on ] and ]. The previous sockpuppet enquiry ], which was negative but inconclusive. Some users still beleive these to be sockpuppets, and are spreading the acusation around, which is not condusive to a plesent community. There is a chance that they are actually socks, in which case Mattise is looking a a ban. --] (]) 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Quite. The place for sockpuppet checks is ]. ](]) 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Although not really comfortable doing so, I've filed a checkuser . If anybody could contribute further evidence or support the need for the checkuser I would appreciated it. ] (]) 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable by {{User|Rosencomet}} of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations". --] | ] 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Briefs-related articles - ]?? ==

Recently there seems to be a few articles about ] being created, many of them I suspect to be ]es.

This may require further investigation. --] 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Please point me to some.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::At a glance I'd say or is what Simon is referring to; looks like more Colberrorism. -- '']']'' 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::These articles don't seem to be created ''because'' of Colbert, I suspect it's rather more that there is a user/a group of users obsessed with briefs. --] 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:This is the second briefs-related section to appear on AN/I today. The first was added about twenty minutes before this one by ]. It was then removed a few minutes later by ]. Just pointing this out, draw from it what you may. ] 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::It's kids from Range High School, SimonTheFox is a student there, so is Pajnax. All coming from an Internet for Learning grid of IPs. --] 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one of these bored kids created his own long term abuse section recently (I deleted it). Basically he/they plan to create a fake article, nominate it for AfD and swarm it with disruptive fake Keep "votes". I suggest you delete the pages and any AfDs on sight.--]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Briefs, eh? Wikinews has had a problem with a "briefs vandal" where a sockpuppet army (one sockpuppet at a time) would basically rise and create articles about briefs. They, of course, get banned quickly, do the CheckUser, and get on with our lives. Anyways, Misplaced Pages may be encountering the same thing. —] ] 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Harassment by ] and ] ==

I am reporting this now, having spent time gathering evidence. There is much more I can get.

*1. See my talk page ]. I joined Misplaced Pages 9-8-06 and the abuse started almos immediately.
*2. - ] and ] often team up.
*3. First accusation of being sock puppet by by ].
*4 ] This is the filing of the Sockpuppetry case.
*5 Next ] tells me to stay off his talk page.
*6 Next ] accuses me of harrassing him. The administrator says ] is being hasty.
*7 where I am notified that ] has been filed.
*8 where I appeal to ] for help. Both ] and ] put comments after ] notes that he is not tolerant of commercial link spam. ] asserts: ] is clearly a sockpuppet of ].
:::] replies: You assert this as fact, but CheckUser suggests otherwise. ] 10:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
*9 As was noted on various talk pages where ] and ] accuse me of being a sock puppet, I was cleared by Check User.
and ] said on many such pages that ] and ] should use Check User before sockpuppet accusation.
I have not gathered the talk page mentions, but I will if necessary. Nor have I gathered the rude and uncivil edit summaries that are routinely entered. An example is below:
* Malicious edit put in the edit summary by ] on ] on 05:18, October 13, 2006 - (revert malicious edits by User:Timmy12; several editors have attempted to communicate with this user on his talk page and have been ignored). This was after he banned me from his talk page. See:
I consider that a malicious message.
Some users who have been involved by reverting and removing my tags in tandem with hosting talk page conversations against me, with uncivil and rude comments and personal attacks on me are
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] was the first to call me Mattisse
*]
Thank you for checking into this very much.
] 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Without commenting on the above material, we've now got about 4 threads here involving Timmy. Anyone want to combine them for easier reading? And can anyone fast track those checkuser requests so we can say something decisively about them? --] 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Please indicate which of my edits are relevant here, so I will know whether to defend myself, plead ignorance (I have learned something useful today), or apologise. Based on a quick scan of recent edits, I can't see anything in common between ] and ] (except this page, of course), but I could easily have missed something. Thank you. ] 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Actually Timmy12 is getting his personalities mixed up. He listed me and you above, when actually we have reverted Mattisse's tags, not Timmy12's. It's all very confusing. . --<font color="3300FF">] (])</font> 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Hmm, so ] is complaining about reverts which affected ], ''not'' ]. That's more evidence of sockpuppetry. ] (]) 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Addendum by ]:

This is a plea for help message I sent to ] . It is a long passage with comments by ] and ] As a result (I think) of this long conversation, ] nominated ] for deletion ] 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) We also discussed ]'s commercial links and ] said there were at least 75 such commercial links from Misplaced Pages to ]'s commercial sites and that he disapproved of commercial link spam. ] 21:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Addendum #2 by ]:

I found this message to ]
from ]
in response to one left on his user page:
from ] that ] did not like.

*Addendum #3 by ]:
Messages from ] and
to ]. This explains the long, lengthy messages he left in my talk page.

Therefore, I am substituting ] as a member of the harassing group in place of ], a name that I could find no harassing evidence for. I am removing ] for now as currently he is staying out and seems to be distancing himself. ] 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Addendum #4
I am adding ]added back on list do to recent activity:

::Please note that ] has been editing the wording of her complaint , in the process removing one of the users in which the dispute was with Mattisse rather than Timmy12, but which Timmy12 claimed as her own. ] (]) 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


*Addendum #5
After an administrator removed warnings placed on my talk page by ],
I received the following message from ]:
The warnings were removed from my talk page after I posted here below *Vandalism warning -- question* ] 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Timmy...this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. Take this elsewhere. --] 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Where should I take it? Look at the history of my talk page history:
Tell me where to go and I'll go there. These people are preventing me from doing anything on Misplaced Pages. ] 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Addendum #6
This message appeared above an administrator ] I consulted after ] removed vandalsim warnings from my talk page and they reappeared within minutes. ] is stalking me. I am being stalked. ] 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== First strike capability ==
Having a poll here, is it about time that we institue a 1 strike policy for repeat offending sharedips, 1 vandal edit, and a 24 range block, 2 and they earn themselves a 48 hour ban, and so on, could be the solution to our AOL problem. All in favor ..--] 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
===Support ===
#] 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
#

===Oppose ===
#

===Other===
#

:Take your straw poll some place else, this is not a good place to do it. Try ] or ]. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed. This page is for concerns needing immediate administrator intervention. --] 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|Tyciol}} ==

*{{user|Tyciol}} is repeatedly violating ] by harassing people who vote to Delete articles of his that are up for deletion, particularly ], where he seems to admit the article is a joke but continues to get confrontational with other editors. ] 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== User:Sneewop ==

{{vandal|Sneewop}} is on his second block, once for vandalism and now for repeatedly blanking warnings from his talk page. He has to evade blocks/bans by creating a new account. Would there be support for a indef block or ban in this case? --<font color="3300FF">] (])</font> 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


==Help for ] article==

How can I extend this article ]? Can you give help me? --] 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism warning -- question ==

I received these two vandalism warnings today:

'''*First warning:'''

--Vandalism warming--

{{test2a-n|Winterstar Symposium}} -] (]) 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'''*Second warning:'''

--Removing citations is vandalism--

Please stop removing citations from articles. It is vandalism--

] This is your '''last warning'''. <br>The next time you ] a page, {{#if:{{{1|}}}|as you did to ],}} you ''will'' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Test4 (Fourth level warning) --> -999

----


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 ]''
'''*My actual behavior:'''


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 .
The "vandalism" of ] consisted of (as recorded in the edit summary) -- (External link - removing 1 of 2 links to a Rosencomet commercial site as 2 links to exact same site address are unnecessarily commercial). This was one edit only. I have not edited that article since, so I do not know what the second warning refers to. The last time I edited that article was October 12, 2006.


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


===Followup===
-- You again? --Hello, ]! -] (]) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.


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


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
I had a discussion of ] commercial links a while ago with ]
, he agreed the site was commerical and said he was in favor of reducing link spam.




] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
How am I to interpret these warnings? Are they real? What are the actual rules? ] 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I can tell you the rules of this page. It's in red at the top, and you've violated it about three times now. "This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department". This is not something that needs immediate admin intervention. --] 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Ah, so instead of doing something about the complaint, threaten the complainant. ALWAYS a useful and productive approach that fosters a good working atmosphere. --] | ] 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:I think you are correct Timmy12 and will remove the warnings -- ] 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you so much! I was just posting it on Technical Pump, not knowing where else to go. So Thanks! ] 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Possible Username violation ==
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Insults ==
] Only two contribs, but seems to be vandal only. Additionally, the username violates ]:
* "Names that are recognised as slurs or insults"
* "Names that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual preference including slang, innuendo, and double entendre"


If this is not the right place to report this, let me know and I'll put it in the correct place. :) Thanks, Adminers. ] 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
: by DakotaKahn (in general, check out ] to see the blocked status of a particular user). ] is generally preferred to AN/I for obvious username violations, but don't worry about it. ~ ] 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks--I forgot to check the block log to see if they had already been blocked (didn't see anything on the talk page). :) ] 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::With cases these obvious, it's not necessarily needed to leave a talk page message. The user will already see the entry in the block log when they try to edit a page, and frankly with cases like these it should be perfectly obvious to them why they're blocked. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Can an admin add {{tl|protected}} to this page? It has been protected in lieu of an edit war, but the sysop protecting it forgot the template. '''] (]·]·])''' 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
:Done. --] <small>(])</small> 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
== Vandalism warning -- question again! ==
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
As soon as you removed the warning, saying:
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think you are correct Timmy12 and will remove the warnings -- ] 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
See:
asked above.


The warning reappeared on my talk page within seconds:


All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
What should I do? Where should I go for help? Thanks! ] 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
:For the last time, go to dispute resolution like it says in BIG, RED LETTERS at the top of this page. One more complaint here and I'll block you myself for disruption. --] 00:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've told Timmy to stop posting to AN/I on his talk page, however... on first inspection, what's happening here is that he's deleting a widespread commercial spam by {{User2|Rosencomet}} and some possibly related accounts posting links to rosencomet.com wildly. I believe this needs to be investigated and possibly add that site to the URL spam block list if the links are found to be spam. ] 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
== slow spam + harassment ==
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
{{user|204.50.176.199}} has run up to the spam-4 level with links to highspeedsat.com and other sites. Now appears to have slowed to avoid being blocked and turned to harrassment in the form of user-page vandalism. Suggestions? ] 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.


I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
. ]]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
==]==
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator or two take a look at {{user|Omallystwin}} and his activities at {{article|Alton Brown}} to help determine is utilizing ] is appropriate. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


==Legal threats from anon== == Disruptive behavior from IP ==
For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I blocked an anon ({{ipvandal|128.226.160.147}} who was reported on AIV (anon only block) for repeated and varied issues today for 3 hours, and left a list of recommended reading for him which I hoped he would read while blocked. Instead, he removed several posts from his talk page and went to lunch. He now has shown his need to be also educated in ]: As he stated that "I HATE YOU FOR BANNING ME FOR THREE HOURS" and "if I wished, I would sue you." I am guessing that 1) he will not be open to hearing anything from me and 2) he is either ignorant of NLT or doesn't care. I am posting this here for another, previously uninvolved admin to deal with it - if you can get this person to calm down, and read the policies, and help mentor him some, he may be a helpful contributor. If the consensus is to block him for legal threats, that's fine too. I am leaving his horrendously long and poorly formatted post on my page (most of it is a cut-and-paste letter to another editor, some is commentary about what others have left on his page, and some, of course, is actually directed to me.) '''Note:''' He looked at my block log; comparing my block message about him to a block message I left for another anon; He signed with a link to Liberty and a small icon of an American flag, and all in all seems to have a good bit of Misplaced Pages experience, legal threats and calling a short block "banning" notwithstanding. He has repeatedly vandalized another editor's User, not Talk, page, and in this puppy's opinion knew what he was doing. I could be wrong, of course. Cheerfully awaiting community input and assistance on this issue - ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked for '''2 fortnights'''. That should about solve it ... (for 2 fortnights at least). --] 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:thanks, Cyde - he'd already made '''9''' edits to my talk page! Sheesh. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::You could've just blocked him yourself, I think. No need to worry about a potential conflict of interest or whatever when the other person's abuse is so blatant. --] 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::True, but I tend to be careful if I think it is at all unclear. OTOH I've merrily blocked people myself, while others were discussing how to best work with them (Trolls are only good for reducing the goat population!). ]<sup>]</sup> 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Adding:Also, I think it is better coming from another Admin, as that shows that he is actually violating policy here and not being trampled on by one Rouge Admin. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I think it was quite classy to have an uninvolved admin take care of it. -- ] 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for having him removed. I probably could have handled that better, but seeing that he was invading my own user page and talk page after just a simple revert of some stupid edit he made to a article, I just stopped caring. Let's hope that this resolves everything. :) :: <em>]</em> {{#if: Canada |
{{country_flagicon|Canada|Canada|size={{{size|}}}}}
}} 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:fyi, He's not "removed" just blocked for a while - and he can always register. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::Poor choice of words on my part. I meant "removed" as in "gone for a bit." :: <em>]</em> {{#if: Canada |
{{country_flagicon|Canada|Canada|size={{{size|}}}}}
}} 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
His IP traces to the ] ] 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:and now I wonder (disproving Samir's very kind assessment of me as ''classy'') what the standards are now for admission to that University? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 December 2024

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    None of this matters

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

    That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Request for closure

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

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

    Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

    If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
    As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    "when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
    Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

    I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

    User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

    Awshort (talk)

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

    Vandal encounter

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

    diffs:

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

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

    User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

    Key Points:

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

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

    Concern About a New Contributor

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

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

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

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

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Followup

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

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

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

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

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

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

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

    Insults

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

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

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

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

    Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

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

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

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

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

    Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive behavior from IP

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

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

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