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 15:33, 6 December 2006 editMorwen (talk | contribs)Administrators56,992 edits →further out of wikipedia contact← 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}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|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 .
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->


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 .
== Reference desk problem and block ==
<!-- 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)
As some may remember, I have been working recently on the problem of the ], which as for some time been misused by a few users as a place for general discussion rather than its intended purpose. My first approach was to discuss the use of the reference desk, and appropriate ways of regulating it; these discussions (with some users) were extensive, and resulted in me writing out a personal plan for removing highly inappropriate comments and discussion from the reference desk: ]. Applying this procedure worked fine until last night, when I . I informed ]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>) that I had done this, and he took exception. I spent a long period of time explaning why my actions follow from the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy and the purpose of the reference desk (see ]), but he repeatedly reverted my edits even after I made it clear that (in my best judgement) his reversions were disruptive. I therefore if he continued to disrupt the ref desk. He , so I blocked him for 12 hours to prevent further disruption.
::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)
Thus I have failed in my original plan to improve the reference desk through discussion; several other admins have tried before me, and run out of patience rather faster than I did. In my best judgement, drawing a line in the sand and saying "some comments can be, and will be, removed to keep the page on topic" was the only remaining approach. When DirkvdM became stubborn on this point, I couldn't see a better option than to block for disruption. However, I have blocked a generally good contributor for restoring that he believes was legitimate content, and my actions should be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks, ] 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (<span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • <font color="002bb8"></font> • <font color="002bb8"></font> • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>)


:{{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 think the idea of removing comments by another editor is generally a bad thing, but in the case of the reference desk I would support your actions as it is very easy to get sidetracked with irrelevant things. In order to keep the place in order and useful, the desk must be kept on the point. Each question and topic on the desk should stay within its boundaries else people will not think the desk is actually any use.
::], 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)
:In this case, removing DirkvdM's irrelevant and off-topic comment was appropriate and his trying to force it back on, regardless of the purpose of the page was disruptive. It is a case of using your common sense to prevent the page losing focus. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:20, 28 November 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)
::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===None of this matters===
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I also concur with the removal and the block. SCZenz made an extraordinary effort to communicate with the user and explain exactly why it wasn't appropriate for the reference desk. As the first place many new Wikipedians go, it is important for it to maintain focus. Dirk claims that we are taking the fun out of Misplaced Pages, but there is no way irrelevent penis jokes on the reference desk make the encyclopedia better and he does not have an inalienble right to post them as his comments seem to indicate. Thank you SCZenz for tackling this tough area with patience and wisdom. ] | ] 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
=== LCs retorts ===
{{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)}}
Surprise surprise! 8-( But Dirk saw it as relevant as he (and I) found ithe Q unclear.--] 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh and BTW, how are the RDs supposed to make WP better? Anyone know?--] 01:03, 29 November 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)
::I disagree. Things that should be removed would include death threats and racial slurs. Bad jokes, while they perhaps shouldn't be made in the first place, certainly do not rise to the level of something to be removed, and blocking a user over such an issue is absurd. ] 00:25, 29 November 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 ==
:::Agree! 8-)--] 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
SCZ has written, and is operating by, his own guidelines on which he has failed to obtain consensus for acceptance. He is acting autocratically and is guilty of harrassment. SCZ makes up the rules as he goes along. Is that how WP works?--] 00:46, 29 November 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)
::He is using common sense and a interpretation of our existing policies in order to keep an important area of the encyclopedia on task and focussed. Also, the user was blocked for edit warring with an admin - ok, this block should have been done by a seperate admin and the issue discussed in more detail elsewhere first, but the block did what it was supposed to do - stopped the edit war.
::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)
::Remember, ] - jokes do not come within the purpose of the site. The reference desk is one of the first points of contact for many users of this site and as such should be kept focussed - if it is not, then the site may lose some credibility due to what is in essence silly banter.
::I think this is an issue that needs further discussion, maybe on the talk page of SCZenz's proposed guideline page?-]<sup>]</sup> 00:53, 29 November 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)
:::Hang on! Thats not a proposed Guideline! Its not been presented as such. Its been presenteted as '''SCZs Law'''!. I proposed guidelines weeks ago! SCZ said my guidelines were uneccessary and common sense would do!. So why has he suddenly changed his mind?--] 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::What happened is that I wrote out my common-sense conclusions for the benefit of people who wanted to know what I was doing and why. My page is nothing but an explanation of how existing Misplaced Pages policy (plus a bit of common sense) already covers appropriate use of the reference desk, and what to do about inappropriate use. -- ] 01:00, 29 November 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.
:::::As I ve said '''so''' many times (but you were obviously not listening) '''Your''' common sense is '''NOT''' necessarily the same as other peoples. Get it yet? So you need to get '''consensus''' to ensure that a common sense of common sense is achielved!. Understand it yet?--] 01:07, 29 November 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).
::::::Mind ], theres no reason to shout. ''semper fi'' — ] 00:35, 30 November 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)
::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===
:::::::Bold text is emphasis. THIS is shouting 8-)--] 17:33, 30 November 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 ==
=== Samir_(The_Scope) ===


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.
Guys, it's okay to have fun on the reference desk, as it's okay (and recommended!) to have fun elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, but please keep the conversations close to the topic at hand. A lot of users turn to the reference desk for answers to legitimate questions; it undermines the role of the desk somewhat if they end up with an irrelevant commentary in an attempt to be funny. I wholeheartedly support the intent of SCZenz's actions -- ] 03:58, 29 November 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)
:I do feel bad that DirkvdM was blocked, though. He helped me immensely on the reference desk a couple of months ago, and I've noticed that he's given some exceptional RD answers to other questions -- ] 04:33, 29 November 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 feel bad about it too. -- ] 04:48, 29 November 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 think the next time this comes up I might be tempted to file an arbitration request to settle this damn issue once and for all. Do you imagine a real reference library would staff its front desk with children (or child-minded adults) making potty jokes? ] 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, I once encountered at a large and famous public library, a pair of reference desk librarians, middle aged ladies, who chortled to each other with off-color remarks about a serious info request. It was pretty disgusting and I have not been back. ] 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::That's not a valid comparison. If Misplaced Pages was paying us, we might be willing to put up with a humorless and autocratic environment, but they are not. ] 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==
::Pay peanuts... Actually I think the RDs get a damn good deal from the RD editors. THe only payment we get is a few jokes (not many of them now)--] 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


:::But that's the problem. What we see as a plea for simple decency you see as humorless and autocratic. Do ''you'' see a way to address this without handing it off to arbcom? ] 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, the solution is to bring such issues up at the Ref Desk talk page, discuss them there, then come up with a consensus for a solution. This is the method which was working, with a few bumps here and there. But, since ] didn't like how we were handling things, they chose to decide, without consensus, both what is appropriate and when an inappropriate comment rises to the level of requiring removal. I don't consider having any one person deciding such things to be appropriate, whether they are an Admin or not. ] 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
::::Yes. What do you mean by simple decency? Whose standards would you be using? Yours, mine or someone eleses?--] 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
:::::I think this whole consensus discussion is a red herring. I'm not in favour of removing content from the RD, but IMO it's come to this because people have been so stubborn about defending indefensible contributions. '''IT'S A WIKI'''. Every single page belongs to the WikiMedia Foundation, and we release every single character we type to the GFDL. This means articles, talk pages, userpages, and the RD. Users generally have dominion over our userpages out of courtesy, not because we own them. But anyone can edit them. The editing or removal of on-topic talk page contributions is frowned upon because it ''defeats the purpose of the article talk page, which is to achieve consensus on the content of the article''. The RD is not a talk page. Our every contribution is not sacrosanct. We are working towards solutions to individual problems posed as questions by individual posters, and as such, off-topic contributions are subject to removal. They haven't been up to now, but now they are. It doesn't need a change in policy, and it doesn't need consensus. It's as simple as that. '''IT'S A WIKI'''. ] 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
:::::::Im '''very sorry''' to have to say this, and its not an attack, but I find Anchoresss comment totally neutral and unhelpful in every way! It does not advance the discussion 8-( '''Really''' sorry! No offence! 8-( --] 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I believe that it is a talk page. Let's look at some of the differences and decide where the Ref Desk falls:


: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)
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&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)
ARTICLE RULES
===================================================
Don't sign posts.
Make any changes you think improves the article.
Rigid format rules (ie, for "References" section).
Length is limited by deleting redundant info.


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
TALK PAGE
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
==================================================
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
Sign all posts.
Only add to the talk page, except for archiving
and removing abusive language.
Lax format rules.
Length is limited by archiving.
::::::] 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
::I tend to disagree with arbitration for this; I think this can be handled at the admin level, which is what I've been trying to do. Unless other admins have concerns about my approach, I'm perfectly <s>happy</s> ''willing'' to continue removing inappropriate comments and (if necessary, and after due warning) blocking those who restore them. I don't think what I'm doing needs to be endorsed by ArbCom to be valid&mdash;but if other admins think having a statement from authority is preferable to my current approach, then I'll go along with that. -- ] 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and .
:::I completely support what you are doing, without arbcom endorsement. I might suggest an intermediate step of banning a problem user from the reference desk for a period of time, under threat of block, so they can edit elsewhere for a while. But if bans are the only way to get the point across that this '''is''' the community consensus (or at least admin consensus) then so be it. ] 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Admins deciding unilaterally to block people is '''not''' community consensus, and should only be used for severe abuse of the Ref Desk, not for telling a bad joke. ] 05:03, 29 November 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 ] ==
:::::The block was for the repeated and disruptive restoration of the irrelevant discussion, despite a clear warning. There was no consequence for making the joke except removal with a polite note&mdash;as indeed there should not be. -- ] 05:07, 29 November 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)
::::::That was a direct consequence of removing the comment, as no block would have occurred if you hadn't started the revert war then escalated to a block when you were unable to convince the user of your POV. ] 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
SCzenz 's actions were not unilateral as so far they have been supported by every admin who has commented on the page. Obviously then, there are people who agree with him and he isn't acting in a vacuum. I don't think arbcom is needed here either. Nor does it have to be an admin who removes inappropriate comments. "You're taking the fun out of Misplaced Pages" is an immature argument for leaving irrelevant penis jokes on some of our most public pages. ] | ] 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&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)


== ] ==
:It's unilateral in that it was decided '''before''' asking for the opinions of others. And, frankly, I bet Admins would support one another against the user community except for extremely blatant and obvious abuses. This isn't exactly surprising, as the question boils down to giving Admins more power and Users less power. As for anybody being able to remove a comment, that would allow the original user to restore the comment if they disagreed. However, when an admin removes your comment and you put it back, you get blocked, this is the issue. Your comment that ]'s actions are "supported by every admin who has commented on the page" also contains the hidden assumption that only the opinions of Admins matter, and all comments from the general user community (including regular Ref Desk contributors) can be ignored. ] 05:53, 29 November 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)}}
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)
:::Actually, his explanation page has been there a while and other people have looked at it and agreed with it. You didn't know that, but it was discussed before action was taken. Therefore the actions was not unilateral. ] | ] 07:05, 29 November 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-->
::::The proper place for the discussion was the Ref Desk talk page, where it was discussed, and I don't believe there was any consensus reached that ] should start deleting any comments he didn't like. And, in any case, each individual deletion is still unilateral, unless that specific deletion has been agreed to based on a consensus. For example, we might well all agree that death threats should be removed, but an Admin removing a statement that "bin Laden may be killed soon" would still be unilateral, because we have not agreed that this was a violation of the "no death threats" policy. ] 09:03, 29 November 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 ] ==
::All opinions are important, but I think we especially value those from people who contribute to the Ref Desk regularly. After all, you guys are the ones actually doing the work of answering the questions. But don't you think some of the less-than-relevant commentary could be toned down a bit, StuRat? It's one of the things that personally turns me off the reference desk also. I see a lot of medical questions that I could answer, but they often devolve into joke-cracking threads that I feel somewhat silly adding to. -- ] 07:02, 29 November 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)
:::Yes, I do think that irrelevant silliness should be limited. However, this is '''not''' the same as saying we should start censoring the contributions of others, and most definitely not the same as saying we should start blocking regular contributors. This type of overreaction is more of a problem than the irrelevant silliness ever was. ] 08:56, 29 November 2006 (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.
::::What you're saying is, if a user adds content to the reference desk that's bad for Misplaced Pages, I have no right to take any action? -- ] 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&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...}} ===
:::::Not unless it's really horrendous, and it wasn't, in this case. Put it this way, which is better, to have that joke removed and Dirk banned, or to leave both alone ? ] 09:06, 29 November 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.
::::::Considering just this one incident, it would be better to leave the joke. However, your argument will apply every single time the reference desk is used inappropriately. In the big picture, it's better to draw a line somewhere and insist that the reference desk not be misused. Dirk's decision to disrupt the reference desk to make a ] about me being a despot was his own... and the consequences were what I warned they would be. -- ] 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
:::::::"It takes two to tango". That is, it was your decision to remove the comment, and yours to block him for restoring the rather innocuous comment. These actions seemed to be more about your pride than improving Misplaced Pages. ] 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Gandalf61 comment ===
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
::My I add a comment, as a non-admin but long standing Wikipedian and regular RD contributor ? SCZenz is acting on his honest belief that the RDs need to be regulated and cleaned up. He has put some thought into this and has written up the standards to which he thinks RD questions and answers should conform. He has started to enforce these standards by deleting responses, and sometimes whole threads. Unfortunately, he does not have time to patrol the RDs regularly, so his deletions have a sporadic and ad-hoc quality. His actions are also encouraging victimisation of certain RD contributors by others - see recent discussions on the RD talk page. If there is concensus that SCZenz is doing the right thing, then there should be no need for him to patrol the RDs on his own. ''Please'' help him set up a process to regulate the RDs properly by applying an agreed set of rules regularly, consistently and fairly. The current ] situation is very unsatisfactory. ] 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


After edit conflict:
:::Samir, note that if the deletion of inappropriate stuff becomes policy any medical questions would be removed, so any answer you gave would also be removed. Be carefull when judging something you haven't felt the full brunt of. For this reason who should decide ref desk policy should be determined by how active they are at the ref desk, not by whether they are an admin. ] 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


:As far as I'm concerned, the block is a minor issue (actually, I now notice the block has already ended). What's at stake here is the nature of the ref desk, and any discussions about that should take place at ]. About SCZenz's behaviour, may an admin use his powers (in casu blocking me) in a discussion he is one of the original parties in? I thought that was not allowed. ] I've split the issue in four subtopics: what should be allowed on the ref desk, whether that applies to me and LightCurrent, how should any misbehaviour (when that is defined) be dealt with and if SCZenz is allowed to decide that on his own (ignoring the fact that there is still a hefty discussion going on about this at the talk page).
:Oh, and since that term was again used here, it was not a penis joke. It was an amusing misunderstanding followed by clarifying info. A joke is something you come up with and I didn't come up with it, it was something amusing that happened to me. But like I explained on my talk page, I wonder if SCZenz has a hidden agenda. He says he wants to remove off topic remarks. But he doesn't do that (consistently). In stead he seems to just remove stuff that doesnt' please him personally, in casu a subject that has to do with a reproductive organ. This is '''selective zero tolerance'''. Very dangerous. Rules should be applied systematically, not at someone's whim. And for that there should be rules in the first place. Let's first establish rules for the nature of the ref desk and how to deal with them. I'm rather tempted to start removing ''all'' off-topic remarks at the ref desk, to show how disruptive non-selective zero tolerance would be. But I won't be so childish (yet). :)
:Btw, SCZenz, do you report all your deletions to all the people in the sub-thread? (And is that at all do-able?) If so, I'm surprised this is the first time you've deleted anything by me, considering I make loads of side-remarks and you claim to have been doing this for a long time already. (So you must have been doing it very selectively then.) ] 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
:I just checked, and you don't always warn people that you removed their contributions. As would indeed be impossible, even with a bot. And that is rather a major issue here. ] 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
, , .


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
::Regarding complaints that I'm selective... I'm one person doing my best. We're all volunteers here; articles with no references get improved when someone have time, hoax pages get deleted when people notice them, admins are promoted when bureaucrats get around to it. Doing the right thing is still the right thing, even if it can't be done consistently. I have been removing primarily the most egregious examples of off-topic remarks, not indeed in the hope of getting them all, but rather in the hope of illustrating by example what kinds of discussion is definitely outside the purpose of the reference desk. In the long term, I have no intention of being the official reference desk "censor." I'm trying to draw a line in the sand, in order to help bring things back under control. The reference desk is off course, and helping it come back is a matter of applying existing policies, not arguing about new ones. And the reason other people aren't joining me in doing this is, frankly, that I can handle it myself and they have other things to do.
::Regarding my "hidden agenda"... Yes, the fact that it was a juvenile penis joke is an aggrivating factor in my view. Talk about all the sex organs you like if it answers a question, but if new users think they're going to randomly have crude jokes thrown at them when they ask something not related to sex, it will intimidate them and keep them from using the reference desk. That's not okay, and ] doesn't mean I have to pretend it is. We don't censor ''content''... but we're not talking about content here, now are we? We're talking about a pointless joke.


] (])
::Ok, that's it for me commenting in this section, unless something else goes wrong. A number of other administrators have reviewed my actions (more than have commented, almost certainly) and I have yet to receive any word from them that I'm taking the wrong approach... so for now, I'll keep at it. You can make pretty speeches here some more if you want, or ask for more general and organized feedback at ]... but as that page says, it's not a step to take lightly. -- ] 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Zoes input === == Vandal encounter ==


] 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.
As an admin who frequently posts on the Reference Desk, I think the deletions and the block were completely out of line. SCZenz does not ] the RD, and it is not his/her responsbility to police it. The Reference Desk is, indeed, a fun place, where there are a lot of jokes, but it is also a serious place where lots of questions get answered. Dirk's comment was hardly over the line, and, in fact, was probably perfectly reasonable. I strongly oppose SCZenz's actions, and would suggest taking it to the RD's Talk pages before repeating them. ]|] 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
:This surprises me. However, without administrative consensus, I will not continue as I have been. I've tried to clarify my actions and the reasons for them on your talk page. -- ] 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Please see ]. SCZenz and I have had a discussion on our Talk pages, and we are looking for further consensus. ]|] 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:SCZenz, that you would be selective was a bit too specific, but the point I was making is that unless this is done consistently there is the risk of unfair selectiveness. To avoid this, it would have to be done by a larger group of people. And to avoid people getting too upset about it, it would have to be done by consensus and we're a long way from that. So far you haven't done too much deleting (you're nowhere near deleting all the of-topic remarks), and you've already got LightCurrent, StuRat and me, three of the most active people on the ref desk, on your neck. Step it up and the ref desk will become one big edit war zone. Don't step it up and you're being selective. The deletion at hand here was one that was much less off-topic than a whole lot of other stuff, so why did you delete this specific one? If you keep this up I will be tempted to start a revolt by applying your rules (''your'' rules!) consistently.
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:You talk about getting the ref desk back on course, but we've both started working on it just over a year ago, and it was the same then as it is now, which is part of the reason I liked it so much.
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:And for the last time, it wasn't a juvenile penis joke. It wasn't a joke. And the other half was informative. But you ''have'' now confessed that that was the (extra) reason for deleting it. And that is what I mean by 'selective'.
:As for the opinion of admins, like I said, it's the opinion of people active at the ref desk that counts, irrespective of whether they're admins. People need to know what they are talking about. ] 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
:The only people here who know about the ref desk are LightCurrent, StuRat, Anchoress, me, and to a lesser extent Gandalf 61, Zoe and you. And between the seven of us, there is not quite a consensus. Actually, most agree with me. ] 19:03, 29 November 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)
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&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?
::Excuse me? Are you saying that people who don't edit the ref desk aren't fit to comment? You are bascially saying Samir and others don't know what they are talking about. If you are going to wield such accusations you may want to do so in the open. Personally I agree totally with SCZenz and just because you Stu and LightCurrent think irrelevent penis jokes are an appropriate thing does not make you correct. ] | ] 19:38, 29 November 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 ==
:::You obviously haven't been paying attention. We all agree that certain Ref Desk content may be inappropriate. What we disagree with is that an individual Admin has the right to decide unilaterally which content that is, remove it, and block any user who happens to disagree. And yes, we do feel that people who actually contribute to a project should have more say on the rules for how that project is managed than those who never, or only rarely, contribute. This is because it's very easy to come up with strict rules for others, so long as those rules never apply to you. And, if you never contribute to the Ref Desk, then those rules don't apply to you. ] 21:21, 29 November 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.
:::Just like to say, in the spirit of standing up and being counted, that ''I'' don't have any problems with penis jokes (relevant or otherwise) on the RDs either. And also to point out the SCZenz's proposed criteria for deletion are far wider than just jokes - his criteria for deletion include "comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative". ] 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


'''Key Points:'''
::::AAAAAARGH!! There was no penis joke! ] 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
::I hope it doesn't turn into ''that'' sort of pissing contest. I regularly work the reference desk, and I happen to agree with the practice of trimming out the really off-topic potty humour. You're welcome to be funny (within reason) if you're also being helpful. Otherwise, do try to remember that the Ref Desk is one place where a lot of new people may get their first exposure to Misplaced Pages, and that filling it with in-jokes and off-colour, off-topic humour is not exactly putting our best foot (or best face) forward.
#* 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:'''
::On a related note, I think it's a really ''bad'' idea to edit war just to ensure that a stupid joke stays on the page. How, and who, does that help? What's the point of making that effort, exactly? ](]) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
:::If nobody does anything to stop this sort of unilateral action by individual Admins, then they will continue with this obnoxious behavior. ] 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
::::How about if I say I agree with the action? It's no longer 'unilateral' &ndash; and how I ''hate'' to see that word dragged out every time someone makes a decision &ndash; now. Where does the edit warring over Dirk's foreskin (in answer to a fashion question, for goodness' sake!) fit in on your scale of 'obnoxious' behaviour? '''How does having that comment on the page make the Reference Desk more useful to anyone?''' ](]) 22:02, 29 November 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.
:::::It's still unilateral in that he didn't ask anyone '''BEFORE''' deleting the comment and blocking the user. The most obnoxious part is the block, over what was a very minor issue, if even an issue at all. ] 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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 ==
::::::He did ask someone '''BEFORE''' he deleted it. You just didn't know about it. So no, it wasn't unilateral. ] | ] 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
:::::::Really ? Who did he ask about the specific item before he deleted it ? Can you provide a link ? ] 06:07, 30 November 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.
::::::::Not every conversation about this has taken place on Misplaced Pages Stu. The is no link. 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
:::::::::Then there is no proof that any such conversation ever existed, is there ? Please sign your posts. ] 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
::I take strong exception to the suggestion that only those with substantial RD experience can comment on its purpose and direction. But to assuage that criticism, I'll weigh in. I have previously been a substantial contributor at the Science RD, not so much anymore. Besides all the in-jokes about bay-gulls and such, I have found myself turned off by the rather chauvinist tone, whose most extreme form was seen in the thread (previously discussed here) about how a man could force his girlfriend into a sex act she was not comfortable with. I would estimate that at least a third of the "medical" questions there concern male genitals. Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD. I do propose that all RD contributors consider that people from a wide variety of backgrounds see it, and that they address topics with appropriate maturity. --]<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, let's say this applied to you. We will say a new position is created, called Admin_Judge. They don't do anything but criticize the actions of Admins, delete and undo what Admins do, and threaten and/or block Admins. They make up their own rules for how Admins must behave, the Admins themselves no longer have any say. If they "discuss" things with Admins, it's only telling the Admins how it's going to be, they don't actually listen to anything an Admin says, no matter how thoroughly the actions of the Admin_Judges are shown to be bad for Misplaced Pages and a violation of policy. Is this something you would find pleasant ? Would you remain willing to work as an Admin ? ] 06:11, 30 November 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.
::::Hey thats a damn good idea Stu: an Admin behaviour review committee made up from non Admins only! Why not put it on the PumP?--] 06:16, 30 November 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 ==
::::I think you are forgetting that I have been an editor for a long time, and an admin for a very short time. --]<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 30 November 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.
:::::Are you saying you haven't yet been an Admin long enough to be corrupted by the power ? ] 16:33, 30 November 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
:::As for chauvinistic questions, we now have two feminists as Ref Desk regulars, one sexually liberal and one conservative, so that should provide balance there. I would suspect that most Ref Desk readers are young males, however, as surfing the web in general is mostly a young male thing. So, we would expect to get lots of questions relevant to young males, who would be uncomfortable asking them in an environment that wasn't anonymous. I think it's a good thing to be able to answer questions like "Is it unhealthy if a male doesn't ejaculate regularly". Note that this question might have been asked by a girl, who is being pressured by her b/f into sex using this argument. I have suggested a separate Sexuality Ref Desk, however, to shield the squeamish from such questions and answers. ] 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.


The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
::::I agree this question is appropriate for the RD, which is why I stated "Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD." Rather, I asked that this type of question be approached in a mature fashion. And very often, they are handled appropriately already. Unfortunately, there are also occasions in which this does not seem to be the case. --]<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
:::::Agreed. I don't think it's possible to get 100% compliance with any rule, however. This doesn't mean that we should start deleting comments and blocking users for those few "violations", however, as some Admins want to do. ] 14:43, 30 November 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.()
::::::The problem of which would be that one doesn't know what might get deleted unless it's done consistently according to a clear set of rules about which some sort of consensus has been reached. One central problem is that it is difficult to keep track of what is being deleted. The histories of the ref desks are way too long to dig through. If some people start to delete stuff it might seem to others that that is normal behaviour. Including others who don't know or understand the rules (if any). And that will (not 'may' but 'will') result in people deleting stuff they don't like. Coming up with a way to keep tabs on deletions is something that should be done first. We need that at the ref desk anyway, because people probably do it already, considering how much vandalism there is on Misplaced Pages. Encouraging them by giving the wrong example is a very bad idea. ] 11:20, 2 December 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;...}}
:::::::Agreed. I wonder how one could technically track deletions, though. Perhaps any edit where the result is, say more than 100 bytes shorter than the starting length ? That wouldn't be perfect, but better than no check, I suppose. A "D" could appear in front of such edits in the history, where the "N" for new or "m" for minor edit goes now. We could also allow editors to self identify deletions as they do for minor edits. I wouldn't expect them to do so consistently, though, so the size change check would also be needed. ] 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
=== Justanother's input ===
I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.


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''
Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I '''strongly oppose''' arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).


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.''
Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.


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.
Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.


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''.
--] 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]''
===Bishonen's proposal===
I note that ] is down to ascribing a "hidden agenda" to SCZenz, and ] to assuring us that the views of admins are of no account, since admins "would support one another against the user community" anyway. (I don't think he can read ANI much.) Nevertheless I want to register my opinion that this is a matter suitable for handling at this board, and not the kind of thing Thatcher or SCZenz have any need to involve ArbCom in. And I support SCZenz's actions. It goes without saying that the "user community" involved must feel free to request arbitration if they see handling via ANI as inherently unjust. If everything has been said—and having just read the entire thread, I don't see how it could possibly have not been—is it perhaps time for somebody to put one of those snazzy colored frames and stop-talking headings on the thread? ] | ] 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).


At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
===Geogre's view===
On the strange wrestling over talk vs. article pages, the reference desk is a project page. Project pages are like AN, AN/I, AfD, RFA, etc., so that explains the mystery of how they can require signatures, allow some wobbling toward chat, and yet be subject to the rules of staying on topic. Ultimately, we're back to the problem of Internet discussion in general: it takes two people to go off topic. If no one answers, applauds, or condemns the silly jokes and chat, if no one tries to answer the troll questions, then it all stops. When, however, two or three people have the same interest in chat and/or play, then their habits can ''overwhelm the original purpose,'' and that's when it becomes appropriate for the other folks to show up and 1) urge, 2) cajole, 3) enforce topicality.


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 RD pages have always been prone to "christians are stupid i think dont you" questions and "fags is going to hell" questions, as well as "I am taking a trivia test in a bar and I need to know who invented World War II." These questions invite smart aleck responses or adolescent banter. For the most part, the participants have an internal sense of when they're going off the beam, and therefore trolling questions tend to get no answers. However, because everyone is always new at Misplaced Pages, eventually those questions will find their own level, attract offended and amused and bored folks.
: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===
I agree with the rest of the site showing up to ask RD to stay on topic, but I think it's bad that we've gotten to the point where it becomes adversarial. Generally, RD has stopped chasing the bouncing balls without adversity when a gentle reminder comes in. Like chatter, belligerance takes two sides and bad timing. I think the ''intentions'' of David and SC are both pure. The way forward is for more folks to go to RD and keep an eye on when we start frolicking in the meadow and ''gently'' reminding each other that we need to stay on task. If it's fifty voices instead of a campaign, the chances of offense are lower. ] 13:29, 3 December 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. ]]
===Another late comment===
{{abot}}
My view is that there is a need to keep the Reference Desk from going off-topic and discussing irrelevant stuff. There should be a set of agreed guidelines put up for review to attain consensus, and then the opprobrium of those that don't like this won't fall on one user. If this feels too much like instruction creep, make it a general set of guidelines covering any 'desk' or 'noticeboard' (eg, ], ], ]). I also think that any admins and users regularly involved at the RD should talk to each other to get changes in the culture of 'jokes' and such like stuff. But those admin regulars at the RD should not get involved in blocking to 'control' the RD. Instead, they should post a notice elsewhere (]?), asking an uninvolved admin to judge when a block may be required. ] 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
== Tajik's incivility continues ==


Tajik was banned for 24 hours, then for 48 hours for incivility. Now that he is back, he posted a stalking accusation on my talk page, with no supporting diffs, because there are none. Please look at my last 500 copyedits and Tajik's and see if there is ''any'' evidence that I am following "every step" of Tajik's. False accusations are not civil. ] 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Tajik's request was reasonable, and I see no (real) evidence of incivility since he was blocked. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Then, please post the diffs that show I am stalking Tajik, because the request is only reasonable IF I am stalking Tajik, and this accusation, as you should know, requires him to provide some evidence. He provided none. He didn't even attempt to provide any.
::And I suspect you are supporting him simply because I have called you to task for protecting pages you have been edit warring in. And posted a comment about that. You are also personally involved in a lot of the edit wars that Tajik participates in, and because you are not neutral to the issue you should not have responded without evidence for your assertions. Like Tajik, you provided nothing. I am NOT stalking Tajik, cannot imagine anything more boring, and there is no evidence for my stalking Tajik, and never will be. He provided none, '''''you''''' as an ''administrator'' '''personally involved in the issue''' came in here and supported Tajik with no evidence of his stalking me and provided none of your own.
::I am not stalking Tajik. If administrator Khoikhoi thinks it is civil for Tajik to falsely accuse me of stalking, then that's a new definition of civil that I'm not familiar with. If administrator Khoikhoki thinks accusations without proof are fine, let's hold this administrator to acting in the future upon my accusations without any evidence.
::What the heck, let me make any request without any evidence or anyone else but Tajik ask Khoikhoi without evidence and let's see how far the request goes. I am NOT stalking Tajik.
::Here are forty or so of my last edits, just show me where I am stalking ], or stop making false accusation.
::Administrators making false accusations against editors because of personal prefernces and biases is not appropriate. Isn't there any requirement that administrators at least pretend to be neutral? There should be.
::Tajik will do anything to own the ] article from all other editors on Misplaced Pages, he should not be aided and abetted in this by a biased administrator who also doesn't bother to support baseless accusations. ] 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't see that you have any high ground here. Where's your evidence that the editor in question is ]ing the Afghanistan article, and where is your evidence that Khoikoi is disagreeing with you because of other disputes? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 21:52, 30 November 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)
::::Well, as to evidence Khoikhoi is disagreeing with me because of other disputes? And, looking at the time Khoikhoi posted and looking at Tajik's talk page it seems Khoikhoi didn't even bother to look and see if there was any evidence that Tajik was being uncivil. So, that is my high ground: there was evidence of Tajik's lack of civility, a comment on his talk page about edit wars, and his comment on mine about my stalking him without any evidence. What exactly is it that Tajik can accuse me of something without any evidence and I don't have the high ground? Why do I have to provide evidence, but Tajik provided none and Khoikhoi provided none, and the existing evidence, Tajik's talk page contradicts what Khoikhoi said? As to Tajik trying to own ], just look at its talk page, and the fact is, if he is accusing me of stalking him, I think they're the only edits we have in common for our last 500 or so, my half a dozen edits on Afghanistan, and the same number or so on its talk page. ] 22:00, 30 November 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)
:::::So, if I'm "stalking" him it's because my edits of ] are not allowed, and if they're not allowed, then it's because Tajik has successfully owned the page by simply accusing me of stalking without any support or evidence or diffs and Khoikhoi supported him without any, either, and in the face of evidence to the contrary. ] 22:02, 30 November 2006 (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. - ] <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 ==
::KP, you yourself are making a lot of baseless accusations about me. A look at your contributions shows that you have a history of reporting Tajik for everything he does. How were you able to gather all those diffs of him if you claim you weren't stalking him? He asked you to stop, and in a manner that wasn't really incivil at all. You're accusing me of being a biased administrator, but if you yourself want to be unbiased, you should try reporting people ''besides'' Tajik for personal attacks, i.e. . <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


:::As I said, it's simply personal bias against me by this administrator. Khoikhoi did not post any "baseless accusations," but rather simply threw out this accusation against me. Repeat: simply personal bias by this administrator against an editor.


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)
:::And I don't have any idea why Khoikhoi posted the example to ], as it's not a page I edit or watch. If Tajik does nothing reportable, I won't be able to report him, but that's not what stalking is, and one doesn't have to stalk Tajik to catch his diffs, simply wait for him to blow up the first time then go to his contributions page--he generally can't stop once he starts. But that's not what stalking is, here is the page, and the policy in a nutshell: ]
: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)
:::"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
:::I have never threatened Tajik, I have never nitpicked his good-faith edits, in fact, I have repeatedly complimented him on his good edits, I don't personally attack him, although when he falsely accused me of making substantive edits to ] when I only made copyedits I got into a spat with him, and I've never posted any personal information about him. And I've seldom edited any of the pages he routinely edits, except for copyedits on probably 2 or 3, and that is what Tajik accused me of "following every step" he makes on Misplaced Pages. This requires evidence--like my editing his edits. I don't, I didn't, I'm not even interested in them. That's what stalking on Misplaced Pages is, and that's not anything I've done. I've never edited the page Khoikhoi posted, so it's entirely irrelevant, Khoikhoi hasn'et posted any evidence other than a page I've never edited.
: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. ==
:::Oh, I do comment to other editors on the Afghanistan article about their negative behaviours, also. User:NisarKand, User:Ariana310, I have e-mailed other users repeatedly urging civility, and I request users to be more polite, not just Tajik. So, my accusations have basis, I have provided them, I don't report Tajik for everything he does, just some things, and others have reported him too, and his talk page had comments by others already both times Khoikhoi posted, he asked me to stop something I wasn't doing without any proof or evidence I was doing it, and Khoikhoi leaped to his defense, this latest post shows the bias, because it includes accusations that I only report Tajik, well, NisarKand backed down, Ariana310 is trying really hard, and when I reported Tajik, I was certain to include an example and a comment about another user's behaviour at the same time. And the example Khoikhoi gives of me failing to report bad behaviour is of a page I don't watch or edit. ] 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
{{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)
::::And, neither NisarKand nor Ariana310 started attacking me and making false accusations against me when I asked them to back off the personal accusations. This is what Tajik does for my reporting his lack of civility, he makes false accusations against me. The other editors did not do this, and I was quite a bit harsher with NisarKand, initially, than with Tajik. ] 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:<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)
::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 ==
::::: I don't wish to question your good faith...And I hate to say it, but from the looks of things, you've been on a personal vendetta against ], which may fall within the definition of ]. ­Inevitably, such obsession with the other users contributes to an unproductive and hostile environment in Misplaced Pages, which is not something you want when a building an encyclopedia. Looking at your accusations toward Khoikhoi, I must say you are also in breach of ]. --] 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


::::::From the looks of what? What evidence do you have to show that I have been on a personal vendetta against Tajik? Where is the evidence? Why can't anyone provide evidence of my stalking? I don't even edit the same pages as he does, and he provided NO Evidence, simply threw out an accusation and everyone jumps to his defence, with NO EVIDENCE. Please show the evidence. Or stop accusing me. How is it bad faith on my part to ask for evidence when I've been accused of something? Tajik provided NONE. You provided NONE. Khoikhoi provided NONE and gave a page I don't even know about, that I'd never edited.


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)
::::::Is this Misplaced Pages policy? Anyone can accuse someone of anything, without ANY evidence and adminstrators gang up to make sure it sticks? What is going on here?


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
::::::What stalking? What vendetta? Tajik's the one with the vendetta, but, it seems that the method on Misplaced Pages is to not provide evidence, not provide diffs. ] 23:56, 30 November 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)
Of course ] is stalking. He is following every single step I make in Misplaced Pages. All of this started when I opposed his various edits in support of known vandals and sockpuppets (see ], ], ], etc).
{{abot}}
He reported me to admins with refernce to the article ]: . KP Botany had never participated in that article, nor does he seem to have any interest in Turks-related articles . He simply got to that page after spying on me.
In my opinion, this is a clear proof that he IS stalking me. ] 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
::No, Tajik is the one stalking, and he knows it--he posted this without basis, Khoikhoi comes in and supports him without basis, a friend of Tajik's comes in and supports it without basis, acting as if he is an administrator, or this is an RfC. Tajik harassed me for editing the ] article, when all I did was a copyedit. He falsely accused me of who knows what, demanding that I provide sources for a copyedit, here is the copyedit, which Tajik also said was my reverting or removing his edits. He accuses me of being a racist, a Taliban supporter and who knows what else.
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
::Please look at what he posted, and look at the links I posted, the first one is to ], the second one is to the same talk page and the third one is from the first two, and it is on the list of Turks.
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.
::It is a good laugh, though, as the user I was "spying" on was E104421, who, lives in Turkey, and is a naturalist and backpacker. I am a researcher in endemic plants of depauperate mediterranean ecosystems, with a background in geology and mediterranean endemics, and Turkey is home to quite a few interesting ones, and is well studied for members of the ] on certain ], as are many other countries of the ], and, like other major ecosystems I am researching is home to an important, well-researched, and major Tertiary sedimentary basin, that has very little information about it on Misplaced Pages. So, in spite of the ego deflation that will have to occur, the user I was spying on is E104421, who also has a sufficient science background that he will be able to, and hopefully will be willing to, provide ] photographs relevant to articles Misplaced Pages needs in natural history areas, in particular the natural history of Turkey. Pages I ''do'' edit, research, and/or monitor: ] and ] pages, mediterannean ecosystems, ], ], and ] pages.


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
::Here is an interesting article on ] to see the relevance of Turkey to anyone who is interested in edaphic ecosystems. There are more if you want, just contact me, it's a fascinating subject.
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
::'''However, this is not the point. Tajik was not blocked ''because'' I complained. He was blocked because ''independent administrators'' agreed with my complaint that he was, again, being uncivil.'''
For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::But, thanks for the laugh, Tajik. ] 17:20, 2 December 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)
::: Nice try, but does not work, because - whatever E104421 may be in real life - 99% of his edits, especially the ones in the last 2 months, have been ONLY about Turkish history and other Turks-related toppics . He was even partly blocked, because there was some speculation about him having sockpuppets (such as ]).
::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)
::: So, since you ''were'' spying on him, you must have had a reason to do so. E104421 had no edits in plants-related articles. So the question remains: how did you get to know him?!
::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)
::: The only logical explanations are that you were either spying on me (= stalking) or that you were contacted by E104421 because he was spying on me and found out that you and me had some disputes going on.
:::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)
::: In both cases, you are part of a ''conspiracy'' against me, and that's against the rules of Misplaced Pages. Whatever you have in mind: PLEASE STOP IT AND LEAVE ME ALONE!
::::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)
::: ] 18:24, 2 December 2006 (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)
::::Sorry, Tajik, but when I tried to leave you alone, you complained that I did. I continued to leave you alone, and you went off and found a new victim, when I posted the notice about you attacking him, you accused me of stalking you. And, until you find something on Misplaced Pages that says I can't edit Tukish articles or have interest in what anyone besides you is doing (as all you do is edit war and Admin shop, no one is as interested in what you are doing as you seem to think I am), then you're simply making this accusation of my activities on Misplaced Pages because you are stalking me, and no administrator is willing to tackle your horrendous behaviour on Misplaced Pages, maybe out of fear you'll stalk them, or because you have an administrator like Khoikhoi who is willing to bend all rules to accomodate you.

::::Your behaviour will catch up to you soon enough. In the meantime, it appears that Misplaced Pages administrators are going to allow you to stalk me--in particular Khoikhoi, who protects your edits and participates in edit wars. This will catch up to Misplaced Pages, also, as you, Tajik, can't seem to restrain yourself from edit-warring, and attacking anyone who tries to copyedit the Afghanistan article or any other article you own. You're attacking me because you're still freaked out, it seems, about my copy edit of ], you can't tolerate anyone editing an article you own, and will drive every single editor of that sort out of Misplaced Pages.

::::You didn't read E104421's edits, or his/her page, or you are falsely representing them here in order to gain some support from others who are assisting you in stalking me. I don't have to know any user outside of Misplaced Pages, this user posts user boxes. This does not surprise me, that you didn't read the user page, and it should not suprise anyone who watches you edit war the heck out of articles and run screaming, "It's a scholarly source, leave it alone," then revert, revert, revert, then get some handy administrator to protect the page.

::::You lied about my stalking, or you didn't read ], or you are simply trying to use your accusation of my stalking you to stalk me. Here it is for you and for administrator Khoikhoi, again:

:::::"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)."

::::I have edited only 2 or 3 of the same articles that you have edited, and these I have only done copyedits on. You, however, immediately reverted or went balistic on the talk page about my copyedits, thinking they were substantive edits, because, again, you were either lying, simply to be malicious in an attempt to make my time on Misplaced Pages as miserable as possible to drive me out of here, or you didn't read them and simply went ballistic on me out of malice. '''Tajik''' is the one following me around. This isn't about watching someone else's contributions on Misplaced Pages, it's what you do with them. Tajik is the one who has displayed evidence of stalking--I haven't, because I'm not.

:::::"Targeted personal attacks"

::::You're the one who called me a Taliban supporter for my copyedit of the Herat article. You're the one who posted false warnings templates on my talk page in retaliation for my asking you to back down from personal attacks.

:::::"Posting of personal information"

::::I've posted none.

:::::"User space harassment "

::::You have placed at least 2 false or questionable warnings on my user page, both in retaliation for your bad behaviour. You got a WP:NPA warning because you issued a personal attack against me, you retaliated by posting the same warning on my talk page with no support. You posted a WP stalking notice on my talk page in retaliation for my reporting you for your incivil behaviour towards another user. Now you continue to accuse me of stalking you, and you have an administrator supporting you without any supporting evidence.

::::'''Tajik's behaviours ''is'' stalking.''' He and his administrator offered no evidence of my behaviour that qualifies as stalking. There is no reason that Misplaced Pages gives that says I cannot look at his edits, or that I cannot look at another user's edits. Again, I remind folks, Tajik was blocked because of ''his'' behaviour, not because I told on him.

::::It's rather more than disingenuous to ask me to just stop, when I asked this of you, '''''and because your biggest complaint about me is that I "vanish" or "disappear when things out of control."''''' Of course I do, this is Misplaced Pages advice, which Misplaced Pages administrators didn't seem to support me in, and you don't seem to have read. You don't want to be left alone, as you are stalking me to do everything you can to continue to engage me by posting false warnings on my talk page, when you get blocked for your misbehaviour. (See and which I have repeatedly pointed out to you, in particular the remedies, "Second step: Disengage for a while," which, apparently if editors disengage the will be attacked by users like you for doing so, then attacked in addition by administrators like Khoikhoi.) You're obsessed with me. Everything I complain about, you mirror--I ask you to leave me alone, and I back down, and you accuse me of stalking you. I left you alone, you complained that I did and started posting lies about me on my talk page. When I left Afghanistan and Herat you complained:

:::::'''Tajik says''', "With all due respect: '''I am really tired of your pointless efforts in messing up articles and then suddenly ''vanish'' when everything is out of control''' (see ] where you first supported all the nonsense of NisarKand, including his racist comments against Iranians, and then suddenly '''''dissapeared''''' when things got out of control until an admin protected the article!).

::::This is typical behaviour for Tajik, and is, actually, what got Tajik his last block, that Tajik was asked to back down from his incivility and the other user did, while Tajik didn't.

::::There's no conspiracy, Tajik. When I backed down, you viciously attacked me for doing so, calling me a Taliban supporter and accusing me of supporting racism. Now you accuse me of stalking you, when you're the one stalking, doing everything you can to make my experience here intolerable.

::::And ]: '''Do not stop other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.''' You are doing everything you can to prevent my continuing as an editor at Misplaced Pages by posting false or questionable warnings on my talk page, by falsely accusing me of stalking you when you have no evidence, by getting an administrator to support your baseless accusations, and by repeatedly attacking me for '''''your''''' behaviour, one of the few things you edit that you don't seem to own on Misplaced Pages.

::::] 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Community block for Supreme Cmdr ==

{{User|Supreme Cmdr}} has been blocked five times for revert-warring on ]. The last block was for ten days, ending 25 November; today Supreme Cmdr is revert-warring on ] again. In addition, he seems to be unable to remain civil and avoid personal attacks as any random sample of his contributions will prove. --] 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart's screenname/forum name, and that this is likely him (if the contributions are pro-derek). Derek smart is also well known, perhaps even notorious in the press, for his incivility and personal attacks against people on his forums; wikipedia shouldn't be a stretch. ] ] ] ] ] 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:I must support a community block for him. I blocked him about a month back for similar behavior and it seems he has no intention of changing. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::A thought, what about a month or longer ban from {{article|Derek Smart}} related articles? ''(]])'' 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, that seems to be the only page the user edits, so a community ban from only the page would have the same effect. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::If you were to do that, you'd have to ban him as well from articles about the games he created (Battlecruiser series, et al), because he'd likely take his aggression out there. That's assuming he even obeyed the ban: Smart isn't known for doing that. ] ] ] ] ] 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::A good idea. I support banning him from all Derek Smart related articles. --] 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I think such a ban would be a good faith gesture rather than an outright Wiki wide ban. I suspect that such an article based banning may not matter in the long run though. ''(]])'' 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree. ] ] ] ] ] 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:Little note, Derek Smart sues anyone and everyone who disagrees with him in any way. So if he gets blocked, and it really is him, he'll probably throw around some legal threats somewhere. ] (]) 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well, there doesn't seem to be any objection to the article ban. Would anyone like to inform him? I'm already quite involved in the situation so it would be best if I didn't myself, of course. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Done. --] 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: To be fair, you should list specifically the articles from which he's banned. By my accounting, that's ], ], ] as well as any redirects (e.g. ], ]). Also, whether it apply to the associated talk pages. This just to avoid the inevitable "Well, you weren't specific"... - (]) (]) (]) 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:Let me see if I get this straight. I get banned based on a consensus by the very same people who got me banned those past times? Not to mention that this was done in a secretive manner and none of the prominent editors of the ] were even aware of it, let alone get a chance to offer their opinions? Yet another example of what is so very - very - wrong with Wiki. You folks on a power trip think that Wiki is where you can get to display your power over someone. And to those of you who stupidly keep saying that I'm Derek Smart, you should be so lucky to think that he even gives a damn about what a bunch of nobodys are writing on a Wiki. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well thats Wiki for you. Its the virtual version of a Kangaroo court where if enough dissenters get together and gang up on someone, they can inevitably reach a consensus. I for one do NOT support this ban as it is highly dubious and unwarranted. ] 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that ] has just done a revert over on the ] article. ] 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

: You can do whatever you like, there is no consensus for the ban and I will simply not honor it. Here, let me quote from ] for those of you who think you can just get together and ban someone.

:'''Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct.'''

:]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::The choice was either a site-wide block or an article ban. The article ban was chosen as the less-restrictive of the two. If you reject it, your forcing the choice or option A.
::This is actually how it's done. ANI is hardly a secret board, it's the usual place for reporting disruptive editors. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Supreme Cmdr has been blocked for another 2 weeks for blatantly violating this article ban. I'm beginning to lose my patience with him, as it is clear he will not acknowledge that he is not to edit the articles relating to Derek Smart any further. Perhaps an indefinite block should be considered once more? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I respectively note, this 'consensus' was not established by a Request for Comment and in fact is very different from the legitimate consensus established by his last ]. ] 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::True, perhaps more time should be spent on this discussion, but I think it's clear there is already enough evidence that Supreme Cmdr won't stop this year-long edit warring, so even an indefinite block would be appropriate at this time. More people are welcome to comment, but so far the only exception to those agreeing is a user who is currently being looked at for being a potential ] of Supreme Cmdr. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== {{userlinks|Daniel575}} ==

As many may be aware this user has been repeatedly blocked and has an RfC filed about his behavior- ]. Now, in response to my comment he has made which while not a death threat per se is pretty close to one and says as such that he has no intention of cooperating with other editors. We may want to consider the community ban. My patience at least is exhausted. ] 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:: If we are going to make an indef ban I'm not completely convinced be under the death threat criterion. It is not rare among ] to make comments of the form "if the meshiach arrive then we would _" where _ can range from executions to animal sacrifices to whipping Jews who charge each other interest. Unless we think that the arrival of meshiach is eminent this isn't a threat in the traditional sense. It amounts to almost saying "if God came down and gave me permission to kill these people I'd do it gladly (but would never do so otherwise)" which isn't really a death threat. Still the comment is bad enough that I would think together with Daniel's earlier comments this merits a ban under exhausting community patience. ] 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I would disagree with the above. It is, indeed, rare among chareidim to make statements like that to non-Jews, or to secular Jews. Charedim might talk amongst themselves theoretically about the control and role of the Sanhedrin in the messianic era, but it is seriously in bad form to threaten anybody in quite the way Daniel has done.--] 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is despicable!!!!!! Is somebody going to do something about Daniel575???? ] 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

*Sorry JoshuaZ....I just realized you posted this already right before I did. ] 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Combinging section for convenience). ] 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

*Thanks JoshuaZ! ] 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:(edit conflicted four times) <s>I think that's close enough to a death threat to warrant a block or ban for it. --]] 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)</s>

::I strongly support an indefinite ban. ] 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, upon re-reading the situation, I don't think it fits the description of "death threats" that would warrant banning. It IS an incredibly incivil comment, however, and appropriate action should be taken (perhaps a mid- to long-term block). --]] 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:Based on this single edit, I blocked him for one week for inappropriately hostile remarks. I felt this one edit by itself was enough to warrant serious consequences. Not familiar with his previous history- perhaps indefinite is appropriate. No objection to anyone changing the duration. ] ] 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Volunteering to kill Messianics sounds pretty threatening to me. ] 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::: It isn't a threat in the more standard sense of the word, see my above comment. ] 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: I agree it's not strictly a threat, but it's still way over the line of what's appropriate. Other recent edits look to me in a similiar vein. ] ] 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::While I respect your words Joshua, a threat is a threat regardless of the religion. Saying that he would gladly kill someone else is a threat. I don't think your description would hold up in a court of law if he did attempt something like that. ] 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Actually, I think there have been precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats. In any event, the real question is whether this type has the same comment as standard death threats. I'm not convinced it does. At this point, I'd not object to a community ban for exhaustion of patience but I don't think this dif constitutes a death threat. ] 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Whether what he says constitutes a standard death threat or not does not make it right. It is deplorable!! I would not be surprised if after his ban is up, he will continue his actions. ] 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important in encyclopedias, in decision making and in teaching someone what they did wrong to clearly distinguish between related yet different concepts. Hostility (shown by talking about killing) is what was done wrong. It was not a death threat. ] 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
*Ok fine...it wasn't a death threat, but it was still uncalled for. ] 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::First off, I would say that looked like a death threat to me. Saying someone deserves death, and volunteering to bring about the death yourself is both racist and wrong. But I can (vaguely) understand if you guys want to have leniency (although the argument "the guy belongs to a certain Jewish sect so death threats are OK doesn't fly with me"). But in view of recent fracas with the {{tl|NotJewish}} template, this has gone from ridiculous to sublime. His "opponent", who apparently has no civility either, was just indef'ed for ridiculous 3RR violation. I would say 2 weeks would at least be appropriate, in view of this awful comment and other nonsense with the template. But, as I said, I don't see how that could be construed as anything other than a bigoted death threat, orthodox Jewish or no. -]<sup>]]</sup> 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
*<small> the issue brought up was ] not Orthodox. </small> ] 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
**<small> Does it really matter what it is JoshuaZ? Whether it was Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or whatever, it was horrible. Personally, I was offended that you tried to justify his words by stating "precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats." Not cool and good riddance to him. ] 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
*Patstuart, I'm glad to read your refreshing words. If this does have to do with being in a certain sect, then that DEFINITELY does not fly with me either. Personally, I think an indef for Daniel575 would be more appropriate until he realizes his actions are wrong. ] 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::I also notice that the user has become completely uncivil in all manner: ,, (said after he removed the said section). He also gave another death-like threat right before these statements: .. A look at his contributions reveals as much. Joshua, I know you agree with some of his points, but this is out of totally out of bounds, and I don't see how a simple one-week block is justified, considering past behavior. Only a longer block may get him to consider that disruption, rudeness, and death threats are totally wrong. Statements like ''Thank G-d the guy is dead and rotting, and if he weren't dead, I would kill him myself, with my own bare hands. I would tie his hands and feet, and beat him until he died. Get it? Don't you dare telling me such things. And don't you are ever calling yourself a Jew or any of your whole heretical Christian sect by any name which includes the word 'Judaism'.'' are so out of bounds as to constitute banning. If this kind of thing were said about another other race or religion, would it not get the ban-hammer? ]<sup>]]</sup> 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Um, Pat, you don't need to convince me. Please note that I brought the matter up here at ANI saying that I thought his comments merited a ban. The only aspect I was pointing out was that his attack on my page was not a death threat as such (and Coredesat agrees see above). They are bannable comments but we should be clear in what context we are banning him under. ] 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Oh ok, sorry. I didn't mean to come across too harshly. -]<sup>]]</sup> 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The statement by the user, which in part reads: "I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed ... I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning?" is utterly unacceptable. I up'd the block to indefinite. ] 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

*Thank you El C.......I glad you realize that threats like this unacceptable. ] 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:I support this indef block. Daniel has gone too far too often. He refused to respond to an editor recently because the latter was Muslim, and there are frequent comments about how this or that editor is a non-Jew. It's too much. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::I support the block as well. All previous attempts at changing his behavior through RFCs were met with indifference by Daniel, so it seems this is the only way. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:Makes sense to me too. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Support as well. In my opinion from working on dispute resolution involving him, Daniel is absolutely incorrigible. As mentioned above, he responded to his RFC with indifference and ridicule, and he is extremely aggressive toward anyone who disagrees with him. Put this to rest once and for all. --<font color="3300FF">] </font> 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I think Indef is too harsh. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I think indef is too harsh as well. First time I ever agree with Nielswik on anything. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: Could you explain why you think it is too harsh? In the time Daniel has been here has had so no sign of improvement and little willingness to follow Misplaced Pages policy. ] 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm confused as well. How is this too harsh? From what I have seen, nothing really intelligent came out of Daniel...only hate. ] 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, in essence, he's disruptive and very fresh and he does editwar a lot, but he did not deliver a death threat IMO, and he ''did'' contribute productively quite often... - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Does it matter that he contibuted alot?? Look at his behavior!!!! Death threat or not, the guy is out of control. ] 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I've not looked fully at Daniel's full contribution to disruption ratio but I'm inclined to think that his death threat style commentary alone warrants indef. blocking. ''(]])'' 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Ancient Land of Bosoni ==

{{vandal|Ancient Land of Bosoni}} (a.k.a. {{vandal|Ancient Bosoni}}, a.k.a. {{vandal|Bosoni}}) has been causing considerable disruption via:
*repeatedly removing XfD notices
*repeatedly adding non-free images to his user page
*vandalism
*]/] by posting reports on ] and ] alleging bad faith on the part of and requesting blocks against users who have nominated his pages for deletion.
*creating non-notable articles (e.g., ], ])
*]
*posting comments which other users consider to be ] and/or ] (see ])
*creating ] of various pages:
**]→]
**]→]
**]→])
*misuse of the "minor" edit summary flag, such as when adding non-free images, or when making controversial edits
The user has been warned about the above, in some cases repeatedly. It seems that every time he's warned about a particular disruptive behaviour, he goes on to commit a completely different one. It may be useful to block this user until such time as he confirms that he has read and agreed to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, particularly ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. —] 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:The 3rd account listed was blocked indefinately for copyright fraudulence, so that might be grounds for blocking all the rest of them. ] 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::I don't see any prior blocks for any of the accounts. Perhaps you're confusing this user with someone else…? —] 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::You forgot to add high incivility (a near-personal attack against me and ]) on . --] 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::You're entirely correct, I was thinking of {{vandal|Bosna 101}}, see "serial copyright violator" section above. Sorry to everyone for confusing the two. ] 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this report been considered and declined, or has it been overlooked? If it has been declined, some confirmation would be appreciated. —] 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:No idea - I filed another report over at the Personal attacks (ALoB attacked me at my talk page) and they directed me to here, saying that it's being resolved over 'ere. --] 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Block review - ] ==

I blocked {{user5|Walter Humala}} indefinitely for . There is also some recent vandalism that was self-reverted, but my major reason for blocking was the apparent (possibly joking) attempt to create a vandal bot and the personal threat. If someone wants to look over this block I'd appreciate it. --]<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:I was wondering what to do about that myself. There appears to be no good contributions to any articles, almost all edits have been to his own userpage - so no great loss either way. ] anyway, and thats what it appears the userpage was being used for. ]] 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Users have been indefinitely blocked for threats, so I think this isn't too out there. ] 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:His still-open request for unblock, which I recently saw, amounts to "it was a joke". I don't find such jokes very funny and I have no objections to this block, although I probably wouldn't have been as bold. ] 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed his unblock request and changed to a 24-hour block. --]<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Thanks! --] 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

==Personal attacks, harrassment, baiting and pestering by user:Oden==
User {{User|Oden}} has been recently involved exclusive in a controversial activity of challenging selected by him users attacking their images. I put aside for now the issue of the interpretation of the ] policy as good people obviously disagree in good faith on the policy interpretation as well as the policy itself. However, even if one chooses to take upon himself such a sensitive task as implementing a policy for the good of Misplaced Pages, such task can only be taken with utmost sensitivity to other editors. With a couple of other editors joining what many perceived as a disruptive crusade in whose process the worst attitudes were displayed, several editors opened a ] against one of such crusaders. Notably, the RfC is not about the policy or implementing an unpopular policy but about the unacceptable attitude and abusive ].

Shortly after, ] posted to the RfC ] disgusting attack directed at all the involved editors bringing all sorts of unrelated issues that had no relation to what the RfC was about thus substituting tackling the issue with attacking the opponents. And hour or so ago Admin:{{Admin|Khoikhoi}} who was not involved in the dispute in any way gave Oden a (rather soft IMO) reminding of WP:NPA and ] policies. Reaction of ] was barrage of irregular stuff.

When I on his response as being lacking the substance, Oden responded by a series of entries where he baits Khoikhoi and brings up another barrage of irrelevant stuff (see also ]).

Third party input is requested. --] 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Comment:'''
:In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past contributions of the other editors contributing to the RfC.

:*] states: "''Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks.''"

:*] states: "''This does not include'' ''reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.''"

:*Finally, ] states: "''An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors''".

:However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Misplaced Pages are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why ] reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

:Final note: ]'s comment on my talk page (at ) came after I left my first response and second response on ]'s talk page ( and ). I must be very talented indeed to be able to see into the future!

:] has as of yet not responded. I will leave a message on his talk page urging him to comment here. --] 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::This "response" illustrates the user well on top of the original diffs above. Please check his "]" at the RfC linked above and match them with his response (along with this protracted baiting of Khoikhoi who rightfully warned the user). It is easy to tell between trolling and proper discussions. --] 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::] (who is an admin/sysop) has as of yet not responded. From my first response at 4:29 UTC until now he has made almost 40 edits, so apparently he's online. I have stated on his talk page that his failure to respond stands in sharp contrast to the serious tone in his warning where he threatened me with "''blocks with the length being increased each time''" (). His first signal was that he was to busy to respond (), his second that he was too lazy (). --] 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
] has asked me to provide a comment here. When I saw Oden mention my name in his list of I was quite insulted. I agree with ] and ] that ]'s comments were highly inappropiate. ] 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see that Odin has done anything out of line here. He mentioned that we'd all been blocked before, and that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Not a particularly helpful comment, but not a "disgusting attack" either. Note that I was one of the editors mentioned by Odin in his so-called "disgusting attack", and I just can't find any way to be offended. This is really a tempest in a teacup. I guess Odin should doublecheck his comments in such a delicate situation to make sure he won't offend the thin-skinned. But really, Irpen's comments above seem at least as provocative as Odin's. I think all involved should take a deep breath, assume good faith, and get over it. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to comment, but I shall. Oden has been contributing to the RfC noted above by Irpen, however his contributions haven't been especially helpful. While most editors involved in the discussion have been obviously frustrated with each other and the debate has been quite heated at times, Oden's comments haven't really been about the RfC at hand so much as about policy. For example, he posted a lengthy screed on the RfC talk page about how the RfC has turned into a policy debate, however pretty much the only comments he's made that aren't an attempt to "call out" Irpen have been repeated posts about policy. I don't know if it's intentional or not but he isn't really doing much except to stoke the flames. ] 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find his comments on RfC to be offensive and incivil, bordering on trolling (comparing block logs, yeah that gives a true measure... <_<). It violated quite a few basic policies and should imho be dealt with accordingly. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Response to ]'s comment:

:*] (policy) states: "''Remarks describing an <u>editor's actions</u> and made <u>without involving their personal character</u> should not be construed as personal attacks.''"

:*] (guideline) states: "''This does not include'' ''reading a user's contribution log; <u>those logs are public for good reason</u>.''"

:*Finally, ] states: "''An RfC may bring <u>close scrutiny on all involved editors</u>''".

: --] 07:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Apparently there seems to be some misconception (], ] and ]) that an RfC can only bring scrutiny on the editor subject to the RfC. However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Misplaced Pages are provided in order to discuss improvements the articles.

::On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of ], ], and also quite provocative. The fact that all editors can be subject to scrutiny only serves to ensure fairness in the process.

::--] 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user being an admin was engaged in rewert-warring in ] with other users. Seeing he is in minority, he indefblocked all his opponents (including me, who did only one edit), falsefully accusing them in meatpuppetry. He later refused to unblock me until I change my political views and confess my edits to be wrong. Your comments.--] 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:This does not require any further admin intervention, but I do take issue with Zoe's misuse of the rollback tool. -- ''']''' 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::I for one do not. "Being in the minority" hardly applies when the majority consists of a load of socks. "To a certain extent through heroic figures like Klaus Fuchs, the brilliant activities of the Soviet intelligence service resulted in the early loss of America's monopoly on the destructive atomic bomb." is clearly POV pushing that should be cut. Other edits by Zvesda clearly suggest a virulently pro-Stalin POV. is perhaps the best example. Zoe was entirely correct in reverting, with rollback or no rollback. Allegations of near-3RR on behalf of Zoe are just plain wrong. Admins should be able to do their job without getting whacked over the head by a lynch mob at ANI, especially when dealing with individuals with block logs the length of your arm - quite literally. ] 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Do you mean admins have special rights to push their POV? And how many sockpuppets do you see there?--] 15:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::] is one, for starters. Indefblocked as such. ] 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Just to clarify - whether the Zvesda account is related to you I do not know, but I assume not - AGF. However, the presence of such socks rather debunks your assertion of a majority agreeing with you. ] 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::What socks do you speak about?--] 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

: These edits are so POV they arguably constitute vandalism. Use of rollback tool was fine. ] 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::Edits of user Zoe was simply mass deletion of sourced information, which is much more arguable vandalism.--] 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Zoe has shown commendable behaviour in preventing Misplaced Pages from being hijacked. --] 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:Zoe's reverts have been proper and there are strong indications of sockpuppetry usage in this article. Admins are required to use their best judgement in contentious situations, and Zoe's judgement appears sound. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::Once again: where do you see sockpuppets? I see only one sockpuppet of Zvesda user, but he used it '''after''' being unjustly blocked (in violation of all rules)--] 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::That is '''''not''''' true. I blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely for performing the 3RR, and only ''then'' did I block Zvesda for 24 hours. ]|] 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No evidence that Zoe has abused anything here.--] 18:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:What about the fact that our blocking policy states ''Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.''? Shouldn't he have simply contacted another admin to take a look?-]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::Also, taking a look through the history, I cannot see any more obvious sockpuppetry (other than the user mentioned above). The information, whilst it has POV issues, also contained a variety of sources to back up sections. Zoe appears to be removing this information. This seems like a content disupte and as such should follow our ] process, not unilaterally blocking editors such as Nixor.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Note also that Zoe did not post any message in the talk page where the initial changes by Jacob Peters detally explained.--] 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::When engaged in a content dispute, yes, that is the policy. However, is the most extensive testament to disruptive editing that I've ever seen on ], and his before the block was to restore deleted material that had been posted by a sockpuppet. Under the circumstances, Zoe's actions were totally appropriate, and the block was justified. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Ok. Now I know that admins have right to block me when they want. One more question though: by which sockpuppet was posted that material? Who of the users is sock? Give us the knowledge!--] 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Excluding Zoe's recent block, Nixer has been blocked ''thirty'' times, for a total time of almost two months. At what point do we say ''enough is enough''? Although I don't think Zoe should have blocked indefinitely a user with which she was having a content dispute, the indefinite block was not exactly a bad idea. -- ''']''' 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Other blocks were the same. POV-pusher admins feel free to block those who do not agree with them in circumvent any rules.--] 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::But my point is that as an involved party in this dispute, Zoe should have gone elsewhere for admin intervention. If admins are able to just block users regardless of their own involvement in a dispute it starts to give them carte blanche to do what they want, and opens up the floodgates for increases in users crying foul of admin actions (which, having looked at this page for several months are common enough anyway). In a case such as this, even though the block may have been justifiable, outside opinions should have been sought.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::How would you justify a block for one edit?--] 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::If you have been consistently disruptive and appear unwilling to stop, a block can be legitimate. -- ''']''' 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Do you decide that I am distructive from the blocks? For example, once some users added information into article ], which was perverted and vandalized by a vandal Roitr. I reverted them to a consensus version which was edited in a temporary page for more than a month by a number of users, explained the situation, but the users continued to add the info. Then I was blocked for a week. Their edits were completely perverted by Roitr and when unblocked I added manually all their info into non-vandalized version (and now I was supported by even those users). This version continues without sufficient changes until now. But nobody asked me to excuse. After such blocks admins feel free to block me whenever they want.--] 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Everyone who is classing this as a content dispute must have far better eyesight than I do. All I can see are edits so obviously POV and trollish in nature ("brilliant and heroic" for some spy???I'm not saying I disagree, but most of America would!) that they desperately needed reverting, and blocks for the users involved. My compliments to Tariqabjotu for counting all those blocks: I gave up halfway through. Enough should have been enough a long time ago, and Zoe's indefblock was entirely correct. ] 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::And why we should have here American bias?--] 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, for crying out loud. Look, to describe somone - uncited - as brilliant and heroic - is awful POV that the only remedy for is cutting. There was no American bias before that edit - I don't think that person was even mentioned. Even if he had been, provided he had been described in a neutral manner that is '''not''' American POV and should not be tampered with.
::::::::::In fact the article was very biased. But I did not revert to support the "brilliant" wording. In fact I reverted the deletion of the material I've added.--] 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, and your blocks. I don't think you can claim that in each instance of the 30 you were dove-pure innocent, specially when they all seem to say the same thing - 3RR violation. After 30 blocks - no, I don't trust you. Does anyone? ] 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Now any admin feels free to block me.--] 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This was not a content dispute. ] has clearly violated policy, and it was perfectly justified for Zoe to block for those violations. I agree with others that an indef block is long overdue. I would suggest we begin discussion of a possible community ban for this editor; it would certainly seem justified, just on the evidence of his Block Log alone. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:Which policy did I violate? And if it is violation then why not to block other users who also reverted to the same version (Humbabba, Mista-X, Jacob Peters)?--] 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Just to clarify - I would enthusiastically support a Community ban, something that should have happened a long time ago. ] 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:Are there identified puppet accounts? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that a ban is appropiate, but it was not appropiate for ] to administer it because it was a content dispute she was involved in, she should have asked another administrator to do it. ] 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:That "content dispute" thing at Stalin's page was ridiculous. Its like haveing a "content dispute" with neo-nazis on Hitler page. Just one perfect example of Nixer's propaganda from deportations part: ''During World War II, the Soviet government conducted a series of deportations. Treasonous collaboration with the invading Germans and anti-Soviet rebellion were the reasons for these deportations.'', isnt it nice wording, especially considering the fact that first deportations were conducted before barbarossa at the time then USSR and Germany were big friends.--] 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::It was not me who inserted this. Though the sentence seems right.--] 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::The more I look at this, the more I sense something odd going on. ] and ] have eerily similar contributions. Secondly, both accounts have already been blocked for revert/edit/move warring. ''Deja vu'', anyone? Here Zvesda pops up pretty much out of the blue to support Jacob Peter's version in the move wars, which is just a little odd. Zvesda, as we know, has definitely used sockpuppetry. ] has an equally suspicious contributions list. I would suggest CheckUser on all of these accounts. ] 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I would support the checkuser.--] 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::By the way I have to point out that we still have one question we did not answered yet. As said ], he views defenters of the USSR to be similar to defenders of Nazi Germany. If to accept this point of view, then in fact all those who defend the USSR are disruptors and vandals. But would this be NPOV?--] 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, putting words in my mouth is not effective strategy, if you didnt understood what i meant i suggest to read my comment again.--] 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that Zoe should have asked a non-involved admin to review the case 'just to be on the safe side', it is rather obvious he did the 'right thing' by blocking clearly disruptive users.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well. Nice little kerfuffle here while I was out Christmas shopping. Nixer had reverted the ridiculous Soviet propaganda that Zvesda had inserted three time. I warned Zvesda about a three revert warning, and he immediately created ], whcih I immediately warned was going to count as a violation of the 3RR if it was used to attempt to revert the article. Instead, Nixer did the revert. I was planning on blocking Nixer for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but once I saw his block log, I figured that 24 hours would mean nothing to someone who's blocked all the time, and so I initiated an indefeinte block. Remember, please, that indefinite is not permanent. If Nixer had agreed not to re-insert the vandalism, I would have immediately unblocked, but instead he decided to whine. I see that Nixer has been inappropriately unblocked -- a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. I had nothing to do with any sort of conent argument over this article, all I was trying to do was to get rid of Zvesda's silly additions (see the addition to ] that he also added, which I also reverted). I told him not to add his personal opinions into articles, and he immediately did it again. I warned him not to 3RR, and he did it with his sock puppet, which I have also indef blocked, and I blocked Zvesda for 24 hours. I have now re-blocked Nixer for 10 hours, which is probably about the length of time his block should have continued. Although why this should have to be discussed, I cannot fathom. Wheel warring over blocks is never appropriate, especially without discussion. ]|] 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:''a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation.'' - What? I am confused - I thought ] stated ''an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages page within a 24 hour period.'' and ''Using sock puppets (multiple accounts owned by a single user) to avoid this limit is a violation of WP:SOCK, but the policy does not apply to groups.''? Doesn't this directly contradict that? Just so we are clear on this. Yes, Nixer's actions seem to have been inappropriate, but 3RR doesn't apply across groups - unless you can show that Nixer is the same person as those other editors. (I would support a checkuser in this case).-]<sup>]</sup> 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::So, in other words, if a certain trolling organization, or Wikipediawatch, or some web forum decided they didn't like a Misplaced Pages action, all they have to do is to coordinate an attack on an article so that each member only performs three reverts, and we can't do anything about it, even if it's pure nonsense? ]|] 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::No, that is not my point. You stated that they were blocked for 3RR - and shouldn't be. It is a bit of an assumtion of bad faith to state that they are all part of the same group with no evidence (especially in this case where Nixer is shown to be a seperate editor, and was adding sourced information into the article).
:::With your attack analogy, if it is pure nonsense, and the users are obviously meatpuppets/sockpuppets then they can be blocked for ] (they don't have to have the full 4 warnings), or the page can be protected/semi-protected.
:::My point here, all along, has been that 1) You had a conflict of interest on the article (which I seem to be in the minority in believing) and 2) your label of the block as a violation of 3RR was incorrect. I am not trying to be persistent, just trying to make sure that you don't think you can block different people for reversions under the 3RR, and to make sure that you don't think it is acceptable to block people you are in a dispute with (it still looks like a dispute to me, as the user was adding information that was sourced so isn't simple vandalism or simple pov pushing).-]<sup>]</sup> 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::So a user comes along and adds "George W. Bush" is the biggest war criminal in history" to the Bush article. And I remove it, and warn them not to add their personal opinions to Misplaced Pages articles. And they add it again, and I remove it again. And they add it again, and I remove it again and warn them of 3RR. And they add it again. I can't block them or remove the edit because "I am involved in the dispute"? ]|] 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::While it's true that admins should never block in content disputes, I sometimes see a worrying tendency to call something a content dispute in order to challenge a block. (I remember that in the case of Mel Etitis, too. He became involved in something ''as an administrator'', the user continued the disruptive behaviour, Mel blocked, and hey presto, a thread was started on one of the noticeboards about his "abuse" of blocking powers.) I've looked at the history of the Stalin article. Zoe's last edit before 2 December was a rollback of vandalism in August. How does that make her "involved"? I'm particularly concerned that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington put in the that it was a "ridiculous block" and that the blocking admin "was involved in editing dispute". Block log entries need to be worded very carefully, as errors cannot be corrected later. ] ] 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::I strongly concur with AnnH's assesment; the charge of "content dispute" is simply a red herring to distract from Nixer's ongoing habits of disruption. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::In response to this - Zoe had been removing the posts of 'Zvesda' - but Nixer disagreed with this, obviously thinking that some of the information was acceptable. This is a content dispute - another editor, seperate to the revert war between Zoe and Zvesda had made it obvious (by means of a revert) that they don't think it should be removed. How is this anything but a content dispute? I just can't see how it isn't one. And it seems a couple of other editors (2 admins) agree with me too.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Why can't you understand what I am saying? Adding 'George W. Bush is the biggest war criminal in history' to the article on Bush is a violation of ] and would be simple vandalism too. Revert warring over it would not be necessary - they are being a vandal. In this case, the user was adding information that was partly sourced. Please try and see what I am saying - we have policies governing blocks and I do not see how you can say that what you were reverting was vandalism or that Nixer was breaching 3RR. Yes, there were problems with it, but lots of edits are a mixed bag of good and bad things.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

===CheckUser===
Her's the CheckUser result, without wading into the middle of the discussion. ] is probably not ], ], ], ], or ]. However, I can say fairly certanly that all of those accounts are the same person. ]·] 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

*Thanks, DMC. I have permablocked all the sockpuppets and gave Jacob 1 week block for his sockpuppeting and block avoidance (on top of his 48h for ] move and edit war). ] 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


:Is ] linked to any of those accounts? Best, ] 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Also how about ], ], ], ], ], ]? ] 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Humbabba looks distinct and Mikhail is too old to check. I can't really make any comment regarding the IPs since I'm not comfortable giving out personally identifiable information yet. If you suspect an IP is being used for block evasion, I'll look at it. ]·] 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

==Non-consensus page moves==
Administrator intervention is requested to stop a few users who are engaging in non-consensus page moves of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of television episode articles. There has been a dispute at ] for a few weeks now. The page is marked as disputed, attempts at discussion have been ongoing , and the issue is now moving on to ]. However, a few users, evidently frustrated with the slowness of the process, are declaring premature "consensus" and engaging in large quantities of page moves
. I understand that anything that is moved can eventually be moved back, but we're talking a couple thousand pages here, plus redirects, plus many of these pages are at names which have already been the result of elaborate consensus-building discussions by various WikiProjects, so I think it would be better if we had a complete freeze on these kinds of naming changes for now. The situation has been exacerbated by extreme uncivility and uncooperative behavior: "respond to this crap" , "bad faith delay tactics" "proposing a poll is uncivil and disruptive" . Can I please get a neutral admin to pop in to ] and ] and simply say, "Stop with the moves, take it to ], don't move anything else until it's been worked out"? --] 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:Several admins have commented on the situation, but each time Elonka has deemed them "non neutral" because they disagreed with her. -- ] 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::Even if the poll were re-run and found in Elonka's favor, it would still require exceptions to be established at various places - either a Wikiproject or at an individual page. In fact, it would just require ] to be run for pages which don't meet the current guideline - which is already advisable. The page moves would '''still''' be appropriate for ones that have not established exceptions - which is most all of them. —] (]) 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::: As a note, both Ned Scott and Wknight94 are active parties in this dispute, so don't really count as neutral opinions.

::: For a recent example of how this group of editors is steamrollering through various sections of Misplaced Pages, I point to ], where an earlier naming convention has been attacked, with multiple controversial page moves being pushed through without discussion. The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006. Then, a couple days ago, as overflow from the dispute at ], an editor from the dispute, in a violation of ], jumped in to the TMNT category and started moving articles around, giving only about 24 hours notice that they were going to start , and then when no objections immediately surfaced, they proceeded. When the situation was noticed and objections ''were'' raised, the talk page has turned into a battleground, as other editors from the NC discussion have poured in. And the pages can't be moved back, because they're editing the redirects to "lock" them. Please, this group of editors is working its way through multiple sections of Misplaced Pages, making a ] consensus, and moving many hundreds of articles. We need for these moves to stop, so that normal ] procedures can be followed. --] 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::And again we have all tried to explain to Elonka that there is no problem. There was no previous consensus, just some guy went and named a bunch of articles that were a little out of line with ]. No big deal. We moved them, there are redirects all in place, no double redirects, and no rational reason whatsoever to use an article titling method that doesn't fit with ] and ]. In all honestly, the only issue here is the users who are making it an issue. -- ] 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Elonka's sentence, ''The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006'' boils down to one editor who misplaced one note stating his sole preference. No evidence of either "TMNT editor'''s'''" or "several iterations" has been given by Elonka. Just one guy with one iteration all by himself 9 months ago. This is the type of misrepresentation we've been dealing with for a month at ]. —] (]) 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is asking for someone to say "take it to ]" — however, dispute resolution is underway. An ] has been filed, but is currently stalled after the RfM page itself was locked because of an edit war largely perpetrated by Elonka. (Incidentally, I believe that the RfM dispute is settled, and if a neutral party would like to unprotect the RfM page it would be greatly appreciated — the admins hoping to participate in the mediation have been asked not to unlock the page ourselves.)

What Elonka calls a "kangaroo court consensus" is the result of extensive discussion at ]. Elonka feels that due to some irregularities in an earlier straw poll, no consensus has been reached on the guideline; she is calling for a second poll. However, subsequent to that poll a supermajority of participating editors expressed support for the existing guideline, and the ''discussion'' following the poll showed a strong supermajority supporting the principle "disambiguate only when necessary". Most editors on the page consider this a consensus, but Elonka vocally disputes this.

Incidentally, at least five admins have examined and/or participated in the discussion at ], and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline. For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq, Steve Block, Radiant! and wknight94<small>(along with many other comments on the subject)</small>. Any other participation in the discussion is, of course, welcome. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:The problem here is all users need to calm down, take two steps back and take a deep breath, all this moving helps nothing; Especially if mediation is to be successful, I advise that it stops until consensus can be achieved. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Actually "all this moving" is just the result of following a policy, making the naming of wikipedia pages more consistent and in line with ], ] and ]. On the other hand, I don't know what insisting that consensus doesn't exist when it clearly does, insisting that an active guideline should not be followed, and trying to change a guideline without consensus via revert warring helps. It's just disruptive. And it should be noted, the guideline is no longer marked as "disputed" (it never should have been in the first place as there wasn't consensus for that addition) and it looks like this issue is not going to mediation. --] 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can anyone review the conduct there? I think {{User|ILike2BeAnonymous}} in paricular deserves a blocks, since s/he's the one repeatedly upsetting the status quo. Thank you. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:I would add that he has been reverting 5 separate editors on this article since June 2, 2006, rejecting an earlier consensus, but has yet to make even ''one'' comment on the article Talk: page. The account itself edits fairly intermittently, and seems to be editing this month mostly for the purpose of reverting that article. I'd support a block of anywhere between 1 week and 1 month, but I leave the exact length up to you. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::As the editor being discussed here, I'd just like to say that I represent that remark that "the account ... seems to be editing this month mostly for the purpose of reverting that article". I direct your attention to my list of edits in November, the last full month; you can decide for yourself whether I devoted most of my attention to reverting Pisgat Ze'ev or not. +] 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Consistently with my ], I am imposing a five day block on {{User|ILike2BeAnonymous}} for s/his conduct on ]. Please direct further communication to my talk page. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:From an admittedly brief look over this, it does look like a block could be justified. Am I the only one thinking five days might be a bit strong? If a shorter block is enough to "get the message across" and change their behavior, leading to ] and more reasonable behavior, good; if not, it would seem easy enough to re-block. Any takers? ] 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::I was thinking 72 hours... '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I think 5 days is fine. Jayjg suggested up to a month. Feel free to shorten it w/o discussion if you feel it's warranted. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree 5 days is entirely appropriate. If anything its lenient. This user has been edit warring over months, repeatedly reverting back to his same ] edit without any attempt to reach a ] on the talk page. If this had happened on a couple of occasions, then a 5 day block would be too much, but a sustained, long-term edit war is a serious matter and we need to send a strong message. This is unacceptable behavior that seriously damages the fundamental processes of Misplaced Pages. I have already declined the user's unblock request. ] 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. I'll let this one sit, unless fresh opinions or evidence come up to the contrary. ] 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:There was no earlier consensus on this page. I strongly object to the block for reasons I have now set out on the talk page. Either both sides in this edit war should be blocked or neither. ] | ] 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Further note: pursuant to my raising the question on his talk page, Crzrussian told me that "I blocked the one who was stirring trouble, the one who was reverted by multiple editors." Since the current spate of edit warring started the user who has been blocked has made 15 reverts and been reverted by two other users (one of them Amoruso). ] has made 13 reverts and has also been reverted by two other users (one, obviously, being the blocked user). Clearly Amoruso deserves a block too, though arguably only thirteen fifteenths as long as ILike2BeAnonymous's. Or of course, neither could be blocked. But sauce for the goose = sauce for the gander. ] | ] 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{archive top}}Please take this to ] not here.--]<sup>g</sup> 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==
The article has gone thru 2 Afds so far. Although i am not accusing ] of acting in bad faith when closing the 2nd Afd, i am just questionning here the validity of the argument presented as a summary of the closure. Presenting the article for the deletion review once more would be viewed as a ] or as if i am acting in bad faith. Is there someone who can review this and comment about it? Cheers -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe the place you are looking for is ]. ] 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:... or if you just disagree with the closing comment, not with the AfD outcome, you could discuss it with the closing admin on their talk page. I'm not sure what you expect us to do here. ] 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hello, first I've heard of it. I find it useful to explain my reasoning when closing complex deletion discussions. By all means if he has a beef he'd do better to talk to me, or take it to deletion review. ] ] 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Since you talk about "beef" i just find your comment so ''beefy'' Mackensen. I haven't though you'd consider it personal especially that i remained objective. I explained above why i posted it here and your comment is an example of uncivility from an ex-arbitrator! -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Mackenson's comment is here is hardly uncivil, it sounds like you are the one taking this personally. And yes, he is an "ex-arbitrator" and that was a cute but failed attempt to make those words an insult somehow. Nice try though. Next you can tell us how horrible his behaviour is because he's an admin. ] | ] 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::"Hardly uncivil" is a POV as it is the way i considered it. Have you had something related to the comment i had made above about the Afd closure or are you here to defend people? -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Indeed I am an ex-arbitrator, and I wake everyday grateful that I chose to resign! ] ] 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing I dont understand is why the article, which had been undeleted after a votation, was then deleted by Mackensen without a clear consensus to do so (9 votes to keep out of 19). Is this not against wikipedia rules? --] 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

'''Decision policy'''
'''At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains.'''

Where is this rough consensus?? I seriously feel that the page should be undeleted since ] has blatantly flouted wikipedia policy.

--] 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I think the forum you're looking for is ]. I saw no consensus to keep--none that was based on policy, at any rate. ] ] 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy guidelines. A consensus is needed to ''delete'' not to ''keep''. Its simple enough.--] 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
*There's nothing in your statement that invalidates the close. ] ] 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your reasoning, Mackensen. It is against wiki rules to delete an article without a rough consensus to delete. You have done so. In what way does my statement NOT invalidate your behaviour?--] 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Bowser Koopa ==

A few things look odd at this category, ]. I really feel like the creators of the category are, in fact, sockpuppets of {{User|Bowser Koopa}}. {{User|The Showster}} and {{User|You're The Man Now Dog}} were both registered 6 minutes apart, within 10 minutes of the registration of {{User|Bowser, King of the Koopas}} a Bowser Koopa sockpuppet. Anyone else seeing this? ] 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure about those two users being socks of Bowser Koopa (though the way it was written makes it seem likely), but that category had to go. -- ] 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::The page was recreated, I deleted it and warned The Showster not to create it again. ] 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== user mass-replacing various image deletion tags with "promophoto" ==

{{userlinks|Pixel ;-)}}. Incidentally, do we allow emoticons in usernames? — ] 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see why we shouldn't. It's not insulting or obscene. º¡º got away with it, too. --] 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has asserted that he/she is doing this because the deletion tags = WP:CREEP. - ]</small> (]) 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Plese don't distort what i said.Ther's a huge difference betwen what i said and what you read.
*{{tl|AutoReplaceable fair use}}=]
*--] 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:No it doesn't it just allows our uploaders to automaticly identify those cases which are likely not to be good fair use cases. No extra instructions are added.] 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::This is by definition ].If it's not what is then.i'm not posting here any more.buy buy.--] 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours for ''blindly'' making ] violations. I picked four of the images at random and none of them had source info before the autoreplaceable fair use tag was removed, which means they're still fair game for deletion anyway. <tt>].]</tt> 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he just posted to my talk page as {{user|87.65.226.171}}. — ] 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously him. He also posted to whatshisname's page using IP {{user|87.65.153.140}}. I looked back through his image edits and it appears he may have been trolling from day one, replacing free photos with copyrighted ones, using some sorry rationales like "he's too old in the other photo" or "this is a photo of him accepting the nobel prize, NOT REPLACEABLE", etc. etc. see for yourself, I reverted a lot of his edits. — ] 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me how I know this, but he won't be coming back from the 24-hour block. — ] 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:He won't be coming back, period. The user's password was pasted on the userpage, and as per poilcy on open accounts, the account has been blocked indef. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::This IP: {{IPVandal|87.65.153.140}} was also patently him, and yesterday evening (18:58 UTC) I gave the IP a 31 hour block. <strong>]]]</strong> 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Dispute on ] ==

There is a dispute on ], over the difference between . In particular, the debate appears to be about exactly how many "content policies" Misplaced Pages has, and whether it's important to cite this number on ]. If I understand correctly, one party asserts that there are exactly three content policies (], ] and ]) and that this number must be listed, and the other party asserts that there are several more content policies (such as ] and ]) and that the number '3' is either incorrect or irrelevant. Some other people, such as myself, fail to see why this is such a big deal either way, but since WP:V is an important page it would be nice if some outsiders chimed in, ]. (]) 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds like another example for ]. The two editors should be given a heavy dose of perspective, and perhaps sent to an article that needs improvement so they can use their powers for good and not evil. --]] 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==]'s inappropriate username==
{{Vandal|Chempep}}'s username is inappropriate because every edit he makes will insert linkspam for http://www.chempep.com into the edit history of pages. My report concerning this user on ] was with an explanation of "Husond has handled" -- however, while ] might not engage in further creation of spam pages, there's no reason to allow him to employ his username for the purpose of linkspam. ] 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

: I don't know what there is to do, beyond what is done:
:* He's been reverted.
:* If he repeats his spamming, he'll be reverted and blocked.
:* The existence of his talk page affords so little spam benefit that we needn't worry about it. And a bit of deleted spam isn't a good enough reason to delete a user talk page.
:* We're not going to take up a bureaucrat's scarce time changing the username of a user with three surviving edits.
: Ironically you've aided his spam campaign by repeating his username on this page several times, together with the link to the site - there's no link to the site anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, I think. -- ] | ] 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::Users with inappropriate usernames are normally blocked indefinitely. If we don't block him, then ''any'' further edits will insert linkspam into the histories of the articles he edits. We can't then decide to change his username, because an involuntary username change violates the ] by not attributing his edits. I'm well aware of the irony of this post affording this user further publicity; however, the posting on ] wouldn't have been necessary if this user had been indefinitely blocked for having an inappropriate username when he was first reported on ]. I see no reason not to enforce ] against this user. ] 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:Furthermore, the indefinite blocking of users with inappropriate usernames is a standard practice, described in ]. ] 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
*As noted, it violates the section of ] dealing with "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website", and as such should be blocked. If he'd like to change it to something meeting policy, that'd be fine, but either way it shouldn't stay as it is. -]<sup>]</sup> 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination) ==

*]
I've reverted a non-admin close of this debate, but since there has been some rough-housing on this IP's talk regarding ''my'' non-admin closing of debates, I thought it wise to place a notice here. - ] 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:Wow, boldness over the fact that an administrator is never explicitly stated as necessary to close a non-delete AfD (as far as I know) has gone far. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:It seems like it was closed a day early. It wasn't really suitable for a speedy keep, and only admins should close early anyway (says so on ]), so you were right to reopen it - thanks. --] 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::Can't entirely disagree with reverting the close, but a) 152 participated in this discussion, and the close was against him, and b) re-opening would have been sufficient; there was no good reason to relist it on today's AfD page . ] 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Agreed, it didn't need to be relisted. Presumably, it was still on transcluded on the correct day's page (if it wasn't it was a very bad close). --] 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Agreed, reverting the close was proper, but it shouldn't be used to extend the debate past normal limits. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::* (edit conflict) Opabinia is correct, I should have noted the perceived conflict of interest in the re-open. I'm not clear on the harm done by relisting, however, as debates tend to go "stale" pretty quickly at AfD and additional information had been presented. - ] 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverting the close was not proper. There is no rule that non-admins may not close obvious keeps, which this was. This is a case of sour grapes on 152's part. He did not like the way the AFD turned out. The close was good, it was proper, plenty of time was given and it had already been through a DRV that decided to undelete. In fact, he only voted on the AFD to begin with not minutes after a user with a message about it gave him a warning about moving sections on this noticeboard. The bad faith is blatant here. ] | ] 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:There is a rule against non-admins closing any AfD early. --] 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry Tango "rules" aren't everything. There was no wrong doing here and it wasn't that early. ] | ] 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've closed this again. It probably shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin (things like unanimous keeps or speedy deletes can be), but that doesn't matter now. It's been open long enough, and after being on DRV has had plenty of time to attract attention, so there's nothing to be gained by putting it back on AfD for five more days. --]&nbsp;(]) 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Possible sock of ] ==

I think that Cute 1 4 u has made ''another'' sock, ]. The reason I say this is because ] (notice the space), who is a sock of C14u, welcomed ]. PumpkinPie also only has on word on her main page, and that is the word "testing". I am reviving this because this discussion was lost in archive 150, and there was only one person that responded, saying that the last edit PumpkinPie made was in July. I can't remember what else that person said, I think it was that we didn't need to worry about it since the last edit was way back in July. I think we still need to block PumpkinPie if it is a sock. If it's not, then sorry for any trouble I may have caused - <big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big> <big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big> 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Well, PumpkinPie is basically an abandoned account, and even if it was a sock, there would be no way to determine whether or not it was a sock through checkuser as the account is way too old. We can't even compare edits at this point.—] (]) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks. <big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big> <big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big><big>''']'''</font></big> 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism by classmates with my first and last name ==

Just about every day, I revert vandalism on Misplaced Pages in my school library. Now, unfortunately, two of my classmates have seen me doing it, and have started vandalizing Misplaced Pages.

The problem is, they keep putting my first and last name in articles (see for ones I definitely know about).

What I know is that they create accounts through the IP ] and then vandalize Misplaced Pages with them, sometimes putting my name in articles.

I dont want to violate ] here (just trying to keep myself from getting banned), but could someone please delete those revisions and possibly block the IP for one month with account creation disabled to get them bored with vandalism?

I appreciate any help here. Thanks! ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:If you go to ], you can request an ] to permanently remove the edits. As for the user being dealt with, I (not an admin) don't know how Misplaced Pages would deal with a ''school IP'' inserting personal information. // ] <sup>(<i><span style='color:grey'>]</span>)</i></sup> 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Technically, its not the school IP, its accounts made by the IP. ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::You really ought to be taking this to your school authorities too. ] 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::If I do so, they'll block the site, perhaps permanently. I dont want that to happen! ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:I have prevented account creation for your school's IP address and extended the block (which was going to expire on December 9) until December 23. -- ''']''' 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::OK, its started up again through ] and ]. ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::HELP! My talk page is being vandalized by them. I've requested semi-protection, but HELP NEEDED NOW!!!! ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Done. ] ] 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Also, ] (and possibly ] could be used) are also being used to create those accounts. Theres a current block on there that expires on December 13th, but account creation wasn't disabled. ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Not to be pushy, but is anything going to happen to ]? If its blocked, I'm betting all my troubles with the vandals will end. Originally posted by ] 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC), who was ]<small> (]) (]) (])</small> 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) logged out.

== Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm ==

''Note: This incident was automatically archived without resolution. I am reposting exactly as it appears in the archives. It's a pretty straightforward case and I would appreciate any feedback/remedies you guys can offer.''

I thought about taking this to ], but decided to try posting here first. Blocked user {{user|Eowbotm}} appears to be evading his block with the use of accounts {{user|Eowbotm1}}, {{user|Eowbotm2}}, {{user|Eowbotm3}}, and {{user|Eowbotm4}}. All of these accounts have committed vandalism:

'''Vandalism, POV, and other reverted shenanigans (a lot of which is very subtle)'''
*Eowbotm1
*Eowbotm2
*Eowbotm3
*Eowbotm4 <small>(I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed)</small>

'''Evidence incidcating that they're the same accounts (besides the names)'''
*And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2.
*And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link.
*An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed.

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for and . And just did so again with Eowbotm1 (a day later).

Can we get these sockpuppets of a who has consistently vandalized on his socks blocked as well? And perhaps an IP ban or something to keep him from doing this again? Thanks in advance. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:Seconded by me, as one of his victims ] 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Try ]? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Can't socks of indefinitely banned users just be banned by an admin though? WP:SSP takes 10 days. =/ —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, I can at least say that WP:SSP isn't necessary for vandalism-only accounts, and if those aren't sockpuppets, they're impersonators, which also violates Misplaced Pages policy(not sure which, however).--] 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
* Blocked all. People may want to review <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>, the other three are unequivocal vandalism-only socks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
*:Thank you very much JzG. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::You've won the battle, but you havent won the war...get down on your knees and take what's coming to you...] 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::And another sock of Eowbotm's gets banned. ^^ —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Stub warfare? ==

*] (] <small>•</small> ])<br/>Appears to be a single-purpose-account created to obviate the "bat stub" in favour of the "mammal stub." Why anyone would care enough to do so, I have no idea. Does not respond to talk page messages, nothing on either template talk, I'm just guessing here. <br/>] 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Oops... there are only so many {{]}}s around, now it's {{]}}s. Do we have fat-stubs, mat-stubs, and rat-stubs as well? <br/>] 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, blocked. Looks like it may be botting, and besides that it's seemingly obvious vandalism. Someone want to help revert all of these? -- ] <small>(])</small> 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Several contributions per minute, obvious bot. ]<sup>]]</sup> 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] disruptor is back again ==

Was using anon IPs, but is now using newly created, single purpose accounts, with objectionable attack-based account names. Consider this dif . You have to hand it to this guy for his perserverence. Perhaps, however, he needs a new hobby. --]] 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
*The linked user appears to be blocked now. - ]|] 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
*I thhink it is way past time to take this to the foundation.--] 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Range-block had been placed on the IP ranges. (no edits from the IP, but account creation allowed) The ISP has been contacted repeatedly regarding this, but no reply yet. If I don't hear back from them today. The next step is Range-block with account creation not allowed. Of course, this may (regretfully) affect other customers on that ISP. Until the ISP chooses to respond, this may be necessary. I can get the foundation to attempt a contact to the ISP. Unfortunately, we aren't federal disinformation agents as has been accused and can't wield our magical powers and secret technology. --] <small>(])</small> 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Geh, this noxious dude was also responsible for creating the ] to further his trollery. ] 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::. Just stormed again. Could you please go on w/ your suggestion Aude? -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Banned ] evading block with ] ==
Can someone please block this IP? His edits are causing disruption. ] • ] 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

: My gosh. Glen S has blocked the IP address for a period of 72 hours. Now checking to determine whether or not this is an open proxy. ] 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== AIV ==

There's a bit of a backlog building up at ]. Thanks. ] 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:MT now.] 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] was blocked recently for a week for edit warring. This block was his '''fourteenth''' distinct block for edit warring and incivility. He was given a one month block after his eighth back in May, and since then has received multiple blocks of a week or more, but shows absolutely no inclination to modify his unacceptable behavior. Atypically, the blocks don't seem to have been escalating in any order, and so he's now racked up an atrocious block log with no end in sight. He should have been banned log ago, in my opinion, and I have extended his current block to indefinite, expecting that no one will object, and the community's patience is (well beyond) exhausted. This is up for review. ]·] 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Endorse block. Repeated infringement of 3RR shows that he has no intention of abiding by the rules. --] 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Reviewed and also support this indef block. --] 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Support indef block.--] 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Support block for one year with 1RR probabtionary period to follow.—]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Long overdue. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:I have seen this guy toeing the 3RR line more than often; and he has been gaming the system in the past. Endorse block. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
: Unambiguous case, he can maybe ask to come back when he's accepted that edit-warring is wrong. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Really see no problem with that one. 14 blocks is edging into the ridiculous. ]] 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:While he's had a veritable crapload of blocks, not one has lasted longer than 2 weeks. I don't really have a problem with an indefinite block, but I'd have given a 3 month (or 6 month) block, to give him time to think about his behaviour, and why it is not acceptable. If that doesn't work, then block him indefinitely. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:The reason he's not had longer blocks is because of the excessive leniency with which he has been treated (and I share considerable responsability in this). Few editors have shown more contempt of the rules of wikipedia, and behaved with more uncivility; for this I fully endorse the indef. block.--] 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not an administrator, but looking at his history, I have to agree, it was long overdue.. Maybe there should be a set 'template' on how users should be blocked. start with 24 hours, then 48 hours then a week, then a month, and at that point, the user goes up for review to see if he's improved in attitude and edits(of course this is somewhat subjective), or if he should be blocked indefinately, in which case he could always apologize.--] 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Mas Ahmad ==
<span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>
I hope you dont mind but I went through his contribs and absolutely nothing but vandalism, so I indefblocked. ] 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:I have no problems with it. I handed out a slightly longer than usual "first block" because I strongly felt this was a bad-faith user, so I'd be inclined to agree with you, but I suggest you post this to ] or ] to find out if a wider range of admins agree with you. Please let me know where you psoted to so I can also give my feedback there. Cheers, ] ] 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Okay? ''']''' 14:24, December 4, 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide context, the above was posted to my talk page because I originally blocked the above user for 48 hours for mass vandalism to a variety of random articles. Glen then extended the block to indefinite and let me know. FWIW, I '''support''' this block as I really doubt that Mas Ahmad has anything but vandalism in mind. --] ] 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Let's see - in the space of 14 minutes, the user made about 39 edits - every single one was page vandalism and/or blanking. Straight out on his ass is the right way to go. let's not waste any more time on an obvious "one-handed" poster. --] 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

: Block is good. An obvious indef and a waste of our time if it were shorter. ] | ] 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Endorse indefinite block as above, all contributions were various forms of vandalism, some of which has since been deleted and no longer appears in this vandal's contribution log. ] 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Sure. Don't even bother asking with cases like these; I've indef-blocked editors with less than a dozen edits if they're all vandalism. It's barely even worth the time of leaving an indefblock template on their pages, but it's good manners. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Absolutely! Well done! Same fate for -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that I wasted Glen's time in suggesting that he post here. Sorry to waste his (and your) time... --] ] 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. We're all friendly around here. That is,except for ''this one user''... (I wont name him for fear of being blocked for incivility/personal attack violation). ''That guy gets me so...(!)'' Sorry.

::Anyways, your actions were correct and no hard feelings. By the way,if no one said hasn't already said so before; Welcome to Misplaced Pages!] 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Now I know where all those missing socks went ==

There are socks popping up all over the place regarding the great "federal officials using Misplaced Pages as propoganda" conspiracy. Here's some to keep track of, although they seem to be shedding their socks quickly:

* {{user5|GenericClownTaunt}}
* {{user5|ScaredOfClowns}}
* {{user5|NotScaredOfClowns…NoSirNotMe}}
* {{user5|RespectableWikiEditor}}
* {{user5|EvenMoreRespectableWikiEditor}}
* {{user5|MyFavoriteMutiny}}

More to come I'm sure. Just a heads up. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::''Just noticed you missed a couple ;)'' ''']''' 20:58, December 4, 2006 (UTC)
:This is getting ridiculous. Someone who knows the underlying IP should just give it a hard block, even if only for a day. -]<sup>]]</sup> 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Has a checkuser/IP check been run at RFCU? I would scan the page or archives myself, but I wouldn't even know what name to look under. (For more socks, check the history of MONGO's question page for the ArbCom election.) ] 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He's on a dynamic IP. The ISP has been notified and when myself and my accomplices of ] track him down, he's going to get <s>a free ]</s> ] to his new ].--] 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:I suggest a range-block (including on account creation) until the ISP chooses to reply, and this followed up on. It's unacceptable that pages such as ] need to be semi-protected. --] <small>(])</small> 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

===Blocked, please review===
::Per this and previous discussion
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]

::I have temporarily blocked these IP ranges, including account creation.
::*
::*
::These are my first range blocks. Please review they are done correctly. Though these ranges were previously blocked a few days ago and are the same ones now. This situation has been going on for almost two weeks now. --] <small>(])</small> 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Looks good to me..if it stops for 48 hours, then we know. Hopefully enough users that may be using that range will complain to the ISP and they will do something about the problem.--] 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Can we get a list of all the accounts created on the blocked IPs in the last day? Might make it easier to find any other socks. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::I've been adding these names to ] as I can trace them down. Some of his previous IP addresses are on the page as well. I'd still love to see a Checkuser on Cplot just to confirm that he was in this same range. --] 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::It is linked above . My wonder is why the posts mentions the ...pattern certainly fits the storyline.--] 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Ahh, great. Thanks. I'm going to add a link from the sockpuppet page just to help any future bumbling admin like myself. Actually, wait, make that a bumbling federal agent. --] 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Be careful...you might also be accused of being a ].--] 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*Either they switched to a new IP range, or the blocks didn't hold--] 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{user5|HitTheRoad}} is another unblocked puppet.--] 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another one: {{vandal|SoColdTonight}} ] 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== King Shadzar and his court of sockpuppets ==

Can somebody do something about {{userlinks|King Shadzar}} and ? He's been vandalizing the ] and ] articles, adding complete nonsense and creating new socks each time his new accounts are blocked. Is an IP block at all possible? ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:He's now vandalizing as {{userlinks|The Master Of Mario}}. Can somebody ''please'' deal with this user? ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I blocked his accounts before and I'll continue blocking if he comes back. I semi-protected Naruto yesterday and I just semi-protected Naruto Uzumaki. If you guys see this guy again, report to AIV or message me on my talk page and I'll deal with it asap. ''']]''' 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Removal of pictures clearly under fair use ==

The user ] is removing a large number of images of political leaders under a faulty legal premise (that portraits of state government officials cannot be shown non-commercially on the Misplaced Pages). This user isn't a vandal, but these actions are causing considerable harm to the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Can anything be done? --] 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:] is not the same thing as ]. If there are images being tagged for deletion that do not fail ] (usually numbers one and ten are the problem), you can tag those images for further review. ] 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:It appears the ] with what ] is doing. From my viewpoint it is tough love...--] 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Our Glorious Leader that Chowbok does a lot of necessary work; I'm just saying that he's removing a good number of images under a faulty legal interpretation. How can this issue be addressed generally, rather than on an image-by-image basis (which would be very hard, Chowbok is quite prolific). --] 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:The first step is to get over the idea of a "faulty legal interpretation" -- you will only frustrate yourself and others if your interest is in opining upon U.S. copyright doctrine. If you want to argue for liberalising ], the place to do so is at ]. If you think that Chowbok is incorrectly applying ], that's probably best discussed at ] or at the RfC. ] 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== nuke this ==

Could a friendly neighbourhood Admin nuke - I tagged it, but a mixture of identifiable persons and locations plus god know what future additions means it should be taken out sooner rather than later. --] 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Deleted. --''']]''' 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Author promoting book in refs/ext.links? ==

] () has been linking his own book, available for $77.50 or $25.95, in references & external links sections in, so far, more than a dozen articles in one day. Or perhaps (good faith?) someone else has assumed the author's name for this mission. Either way, I'm aware of no wikipolicy approving this practice. ] ] 01:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I can't stand this self-promotion spam. The editor did not much else but spam various articles, so I, not an administrator, reverted them, and posted a spam warning on his page. And administrator should feel free to do something if it warrants it, but this is actually a farely common occurence on Misplaced Pages, nothing special--Sonnenfeld may just not know the rule. ] 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Fast work there, KP—good job. ] 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



==Main page protection policy==
yes, yes, I know it's policy, so there's no reason to request semi-protection, but what is happening to ] on the main page isn't good for anyone. ] (]) 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:In exceptional cases, people have rarely had problems with semi-protection. <s>And with 5 vandals in a minute?</s> Something reealy needs to be done. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Not quite that bad, but still bad. Please protect it admins? I'll give you a smiley face! :) -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:It's apparently been vandalized about 50 times in 80 minutes. I've semi-protected for now... I will unprotect soon per the status quo. --] 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] (]) 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A template on the page has apparently been vandalized... help needed ASAP. --] 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::a lot of the vandalism seems to be the work of one user, albeit working from different Ips- notice the oversized signature in all the vandalisms. ] 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:This is as bad as I've seen - can we get a longer protection period, in spite of the policy, considering the offense that may be created? ] (]) 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::I am going to unprotect in about 10 minutes... I've found that for whatever reason a brief protection is surprisingly effective at calming down the vandals, plus some have been blocked now. But if it continues... we'll just see what happens. For whatever it's worth, some discussion is ongoing at ]. --] 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::>.< Can someone protect the templates on the page? Today's FA concerns shouldn't apply there. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I can't figure out what template keeps getting vandalized... if anyone knows I will full protect it and block whoever's been vandalizing it, if possible. --] 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::{{tl|featured article}}, I think. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::It was {{tl|Infobox Disease}}; W.marsh has protected it. ] 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::A lot of the vandalism is the work of the same vandal operating from a dynamic IP from Reston, Virginia. If we block that guy on sight the problem should be averted. Just check the WHOIS of the vandal IPs when this goes back online] 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::The attacks are coming from public proxies; try Googling 66.184.56.98 or 85.25.139.149. Apparently we need to do a better job of blocking them. ] 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone unprotectd already - fun. ] (]) 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah. This is the first article on my watchlist that's been on the mainpage. I'm glad to know this isn't normal. God, people really suck sometimes. But when you unprotect, rest assured, there's folks on the case. I'm ready to revert this article for hours. One of the things that keeps happening is that so much vandalism happens in a brief period, that the reverts end up keeping some there. I was thinking about copying a good page into my clipboard and then just pasting into any vandalous version that comes up. Is that kosher?] 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been protected again (not by me). Hopefully we can discuss rather than wheel war this time. --] 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Something is happening at ] ] (]) 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Somehow this page (AN/I) has a template that's been vandalized similar to OMIM...? --] 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::I can't tell what happened at OMIM, but it's part of the disease infobox, and it popped up on my watchlist as vandalized. ] (]) 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Definitely need to protect the templates trandscluded on the down syndrome page. ] 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{t1|ICD10}}, {{t1|ICD9}}, and {{t1|ICDO}} templates have been semi-protected (this first was vandalized severely). I'm okay with leaving the main article unprotected if others feel the vandalism is manageable. -- ''']''' 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Someone might as well get PMID as well, before "they" find it. ] (]) 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Some of the culprits have been blocked, a remedy with a lot less collateral damage than sprotection. Let's see if the blocking and warning works] 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Done. Before someone thinks I'm going overboard, see what happened to {{t1|ICD10}}. It went undiscovered for a couple minutes because it took awhile to discover the template that had the severe vandalism. I can't imagine much collateral damage from (temporarily) semi-protecting templates that shouldn't really need editing anyway. -- ''']''' 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah, no probs there- new users should stay away from these templates. Anyway, the blocking and warning seems to have worked- the vandalism in the main page article seems to have stopped. ] 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandalizing isn't new and it can be effective. When ] was up on the Main Page, someone vandalized the {{tl|pokenum}} template with a picture of the male reproductive organ. Quite effective. ] 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use of image violations by ] ==

User is repeatedly performing reversion in the ] article. The original picture is free; the one the user insists upon putting in is copyrighted. User originally claimed that copyright work is fair use because the using the picture generates no profit. User has been explicitly referred to ] and explictly told to note that fair use requires there to be no free alternative to the copyrighted work. (In this case, obviously there '''is''' a free alternative, so fair use cannot apply.) User ignores this and continues to put in the copyrighted image, offering no justification beyond putting "refer to Misplaced Pages:Copyrights" in their edit summaries. It has been explained to the user that under the above mentioned fair use polilcy, ] actually contradicts, not supports, the user's position. The user has offered no response, either on user talk pages or the article discussion page to further justify the user's position. Further reversion of the user's edit by myself will just be a continuation of an edit war since the user seems interested neither in explaining their position, nor in backing down, and would further put me in violation of ]. So perhaps it's a situation best handled by an admin. ] 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Mwelch, your position is absolutely right, and well handled so far, too. I have rolled back Wikimania2, and deleted the image as not free use per your observation that we already have a free alternative. Post here if further action is needed. ] 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the assistance. Please know that it is very much appreciated! I'll advise if there is anything further. ] 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== User:Light current ==

<span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> :There's been some disagreement over at the reference desk- see ]. My personal opinion here is that Light current is either completely clueless or is intentionally trolling, and I've given him a stern . However, my supply of AGF is probably running out with this guy so I wonder if anyone else has opinions. ] ] 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:There was a situation before at one of the content policies that appeared to involve trolling from Light current. The warning was a good idea. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm. Good luck. See his block log. A warning was proper though. Considering the numerous ones he's had in the past, I wouldn't mess about if he continues however. ] | ] 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Light current doesn't really strike me as bad, but he sometimes acts in a juvenile manner. ] 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I concur. He either does not have, or does not use, good judgement about what to say. At a certain point, however, even if we assume the best of intentions, something has to be done. -- ] 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::As far as I know I have responded to all current criticisms and taken corrective action (including deletions). If there are any other outstanding issues, please let me know. 8-)--] 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: Light current, be aware that it is common for people to be banned from places they disrupt. I hope you have decided to stop the nonsense. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I have responded to all the issues raised. If you raise a specific issue that has not already been dealt with I will respond.--] 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:], you asked for opinions, so here is mine. I don't see how ] is being disruptive. You unilaterally deleted a non-offensive question about HRT from the Science RD; ] re-instated the question; and then ] and ] discussed the issue with you on StuRat's talk page. For you to say that ] is "completely clueless or is intentionally trolling" is unjustified, and very close to a personal attack. ] 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree. ] is biased in this matter, and should recuse himself from any actions, as he indicated he would do: ''"But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it"'' . That was a good idea, it's too bad he didn't do as he said, and leave this matter to other, calmer heads. ] 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Did you check his contributions? Particular gems include making a masturbation joke in response to a RD question. He's been quite unresponsive to complaints on his talk page. Well, unresponsive is not the right word- he responds, as a chattering child might respond. But thus far he's failed to modify his behavior. ] ] 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, I am familiar with Light current's contributions. Do you have a link for the masturbation joke ? If you are thinking of the "popping your collar" remark, I found that quite funny in context, but I don't believe it was one of Light current's answers. ] 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

:::How do you know it was related to masturbation? THat interpretation is purely in your mind!--] 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Not off the top of my head. Here's another recent off-topic sexual remark that someone complained about . See also the numerous complaints on his talk page about his RD activities. He seems to honestly believe in his right to use the RD as a chat board. I'm not opposed to a certain amount of that, but here's a user who's been getting and ignoring complaints for some time. He's exhausted my patience, but I don't know if he's exhausted the entire community's patience yet. Note that mostly his remarks aren't that bad in isolation- you have to look at the overall pattern of disruptive behavior to see the problem here. He seems to enjoy being a pest- if there are little or no useful contributions to offset this, the answer looks obvious to me. But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it. ] ] 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::He has not been "ignoring complaints", he has discused them, and, where appropriate (and given the opportunity to do so), he has reverted his edits. ] 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::So you can't remember what you meant by the "masturbation joke". Is it possible you are conflating the activities of several RD users, and attributing them all to Light current ? As for the "photography" example, Light current's remark was challenged on the RD talk page, and Light current says he would have amended it, but we will never know if he would have, because you didn't give him a chance - you deleted his response ''7 minutes'' after it was raised on the talk page. That does begin to look like stalking behaviour to me. You say that Light current irritates you - my opinion is that this irritation has led to you no longer being objective about his behaviour. ] 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I remember it fine, and the diff is . Why are you objecting to me ''quickly'' deleting irrelevant (and possibly, slightly offensive) content? Doing it slower doesn't mean it gets done better. Yes, I've been reviewing his contributions- so have others. This is so we can remove the more juvenile and off-topic remarks he makes, since he's demonstrated no judgment of his own. I guess one man's "stalking" is another's "damage control". However I intent to continue to remove rude, irrelevant, and/or unhelpful comments from pages as I see fit. This is neither a playground, a chat board, nor a forum for free speech. ] ] 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to Light current's talk page before, mostly over the same sort of problems. See archived threads ] and ] for examples. One comment in particular was very illuminating: ''"When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel. 8-)"'' (28 October 2006) - despite the smiley, this either displays the wrong attitude, or a worrying lack of judgement over the right time and place to make jokes. This lack of judgment is evident at the Reference Desk as well. There also seems to be a pattern of behaviour along the lines of pushing the boundaries and defying authority up to a certain point, and then claiming innocence, and saying that he has "responded to all queries". Overall, the attitude and behaviour is often (but not always) juvenile and immature. Ultimately, I would say stern warnings (when needed) from ''uninvolved'' parties may be the only way to get the message through, along with some mentoring. Of course, the behaviour may improve over time as the user gains experience in life and Misplaced Pages. And it would be unfair to single out Light current. There are others that exhibit the same sort of behaviour. Possibly showing these sort of users ''other'' areas of Misplaced Pages they could contribute to would work well, as then they really ''will'' encounter people who will tell them exactly what they think of silly behaviour. ] 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Agree that there are other problem editors with the same sort of behavior. LC seems to be buddies with some of them. But, we have to start somewhere. Agree that warnings are reasonable but they have thus far been ineffective. Whether the "innocent child" routine is genuine or not I don't particularly care- the disruption is the same either way. He also made some reference to his edit count to me, as though he believes this justifies his behavior. Anyway, he's characterized my telling him his behavior needs to change as "stalking", which I guess translates into "leave me alone and let me do what I want." A block might help him understand that his behavior really is a problem, but it's hard to point to a single edit that clearly warrants such action. ] ] 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::What about an ] for user conduct? If enough people agree with what they think the problem is, the message might get through. ] 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::For what it's worth: ]. He says he understands that many people think his editing is frequently inappropriate. Time will tell I suppose. ] ] 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I tried to reason with him about a month ago (archived at ] with a related thread starting at ] with no apparent improvement on his part. This is where the "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel." quote came from. When it became clear to him that I'm an admin he backed off (somewhat), but has been pushing the edge ever since. I fear RFC may be the only recourse. -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 1 week. See my explanation at ]. As always, I invite others to review and adjust as they see fit. ] ] 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Good decision. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:It appears harsh at first glance, but I understand the logic. When a user clearly alludes to masturbation and then tries to convince people that it's all in their own heads, that's trolling. LC often seems bent on arguing that nobody can ''prove'' what he's talking about, and that the judgement and common sense of others may be faulty, so there's nothing anybody can do; I've talked to him before about the fallacies of this approach, but I guess the lesson didn't sink in. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a long block will make him behave better&mdash;but I also have no idea what else to do. -- ] 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Not convinced it will help either, but it will make the trolling go away temporarily. Or, at any rate it'll confine it to his own page where he can talk to himself all day long as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the feedback, glad I wasn't completely unreasonable here. ] ] 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not an admin, but a week seems a little harsh to me. Light current has shown that he can talk the talk (ie. he says he understands what is wrong and will try better in the future), but I would say judge his actions during a probationary period. Unblock or reduce the block length, and make clear that disruptive behaviour during the probationary period of a week will result in the block being reimposed. ie. Make clearer to him what sort of behaviour he needs to avoid, and then watch for a week to see that he does avoid that sort of behaviour. Again, mentoring is really what is needed ere, with someone to politely tap the shoulder and say "ahem, do you ''really'' think that is suitable?" ] 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, both nonsexual jokes and the serious discussion of sexual topics, such as masturbation, are allowed on the Ref Desk, but there do appear to be significant objections to sexual jokes. That's fine, but the editor should then be asked to remove the post and given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Instead, ] removed it himself, depriving ] of the opportunity to do so, then used this post later as a justification for blocking this editor for a week. Note that ] did not restore the comment, and shows every sign of being reasonable in this matter. Furthermore, ]'s actions regarding the Ref Desk have been needlessly rude, as he himself admits: and disruptive recently, including his suggestion that the Ref Desk be deleted entirely. ] 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to all this, I am serious that users who use Misplaced Pages as a chat room or discussion place, should be encouraged to take that behaviour to ''genuine'' discussion forums. Lord knows there are enough IRC chatrooms and bulletin boards out there, and ] as well. ] 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*Support block. I like ] and I think he enjoys editing here. But he has to realize that his reference desk behaviour is crossing that murky line from making funny comments to being disruptive. If he shows a willingness to tone down his RD commentary on his talk page, I'd be in favour of unblocking -- ] 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*Support block. This guy has been trolling, and the block will reduce disruption. Hopefully it will only be needed once. - ]</small> (]) 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*I'm a non-admin, but I support the block. Comments like are not acceptable, especially in light of given question. Were this isolated, it would not be a problem, but he was warned, and continues to lawyer around with things like "you can't ''prove'' I meant that". I'm also worried by comments like "I've responded to any ''specific'' issues", which seem to be his way of saying, "I'm only going to respond to past questions, and not necessarily fix my behavior in the future." Friday had every right to remove offensive comments on sight; we don't just let ugly comments sit on the board, just so a user has the chance to go back and remove them later to prove his genuineness. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*I support. This guy is disruptive, and incivil. Viewing his comments on AN/I should tell you that in an instant. I probably won't remember to recheck this so if you have a comment on my comment, leave a message on my user talk. ] ] ] ] ] 08:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' this block. ] has admitted he is biased in this matter, and the "punishment" here is way out of line with the "crime": ''"But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it"'' . ] 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*I am a non-admin, and I '''oppose''' this block. Light current's reaction to criticism of his RD posts has been persistent but polite. I have seen no evidence that he has broken WP guidelines or policy. He has not been disruptive. Friday has over-reacted, and has allowed his feelings of irritation to override his judgement. He has abused his admin powers to pursue a personal disagreement with Light current. He has escalated from his initial AN/I post to a week long block in ''less than 24 hours''. If Friday thought a block was necessary, he should have proposed this course of action, given Light current a chance to defend himself, obtained concensus on the term of the block and asked an uninvolved admin to enact it. ] 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:*I agree with ]. ] 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:*So what you're saying is that it's OK for a user to post out-of-context comments about masturbation, camera voyeurism, and other inappropriate subjects, and then, when confronted, not to be penitent, but to lawyer, refuse to admit fault, to argue, and to obfuscate ("you don't know that's what I meant"). I'm sorry, posting nonsense like that, then pretending you did nothing wrong, after repeatedly being asked to stop is totally unacceptable. I'm sorry, he should know better than that. And, I know you're frustrated with Friday, but the fact is, that is an ''ongoing'' problem; this is far from the first time this user has been a problem in such areas. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::*An Admin should be neutral, but ] appears to "have it in for" ], resulting in his imposing a week long block for what is, at best, a minor problem. It appears as though ] was looking for any excuse to impose a block. ] has been willing to remove any of his posts which are found to be inappropriate, if given the chance. ], however, has not given him that chance. ] 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::In what areas? The ref desk? I don't recall having ever seen you there.

*The ref desk is going to die this way. A one week block?! I sometimes wonder what LC is talking about, but I don't find him disruptive at all. I still don't get what he is being blocked for. It's all about one single remark that he himself agreed to remove (had he been given a chance) and when Friday is asked for another example he restates the same one. Other examples given are from his own talk page. His own talk page! Is that a reason for a block? A ''one week'' block? Much more disruptive is factually wrong information, because that looks like a useful answer. That is not the case here. This is about a silly remark. If this sort of deletionist behaviour continues at the ref desk and those who protest it are blocked (in stead of the other way around) the ref desk will become dull, many useful editors will leave (there are too few already as it is) and the ref desk will die. I have already noticed this happening, as I predicted it would. And it's going to get worse. This censorship has to stop. No need to block me. I've done that myself. After thousands of edits over the last year I have decided to stop contributing to the ref desk. And this is probably my last contribution to this page too. It's all too childish for me to waste time on. If people get blocked for a week for something like this, I'm out of here. To those who say 'good riddance' (there will be those): I didn't get ] for my work at the ref desk for nothing. ] 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:*You are going to block yourself? From it looks like SCZenz blocked you, not yourself. This is not censorship. The reference desk needs to be kept on topic and focused. The more 'playful' and 'stream of consciousness' it becomes, the less useful it is. As I've said above, there are plenty of other places to joke around at, but ] is not one of them. FWIW, I too think the 1-week ban is too harsh, and I also think Friday needs to provide a clearer reason, and Friday should have left it to an uninvolved admin to impose a block, if needed. ] 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::*That block has ended. He is saying he will not participate in the Ref Desk in the future, even though allowed to do so, because of his disgust at the level of hostility aimed at certain Ref Desk contributors from certain Admins, such as ] and ]. ] 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Yup. You beat me to it once again. Btw, this is a nice example of how some people don't understand certain types of humour. Which is no reason to delete it. One note to what you said: I don't care if it's admins who do it. Any deletions (by others) at the ref desk are baaaaaad because there are about a thousand edtis per day there, which makes it impossible to keep track of deletions. If that issue is somehow resolved, notify me. I might return. ] 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose one week block: Support 12/24-hour block:''' I did not see any warnings on ] so I was going to oppose any block pending adequate warning, but then I discovered that LC has prematurely archived the warning and lots of relevant discussion on this topic with . I find that disingenuous and it speaks to the need for administrative disincentive for inappropriate behavior (dare I say disruptive? don't mean to dis anyone). I have myself found some of LC's post to the forum frivilous and I personally have decided to ignore any questions posted by him. That is based on what I saw as "crying wolf", i.e. asking questions that he really had no desire to have answered, just for fun. I hinted at such in . I considered that LC was disrespectful to the fact that I had gone to the effort of giving him a legitimate answer to what I thought was a legitimate question. As I myself just consider LC overly playful I did not see fit to warn him otherwise. That Friday sees his behaviour as more serious is a matter for those two to sort out but to the degree that LC ignored the warning then he can have the block but one week is WAY excessive; 12 or 24 hours is better. --] 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Note: SCZenz even (not 'archived') a warning template I placed on his talk page. When I asked other admins about this, the answer was that one can do whatever one likes at ones own talk page. Even though this was a bit more than just 'disingeneous'. ] 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' one week block. I feel very strongly about this, as an RD regular. I think sometimes LC is over the top, but he's shown suitable contrition in response to the recent discussions. I regularly do RC patrol and report vandals. I see persistent, malicious blankers and offensive posters receive blocks much shorter than 1 week. And they are non penitent. Shorten this please. --] 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' block. Even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, a one-week block is inappropriately harsh. Yesterday a spammer who created two articles spamming a website, who deleted spam tags from them, recreated the delteed articles twice after admin deletion, listed the article on the req for page protection page to try to protect it from *me* and the deleting admins, forged my signature, and then lied about it, requested a review of the block, got one, blanked the user page and requested another one, got the same--a week's blocking.
:Furthermore, even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, the action for which he was blocked was under active & general discussion and it was premature to do so prior to some conclusion of that discussion, especially in the '''absence of clear, uncontradicted and unambiguous guidelines''' about the behavior for which he's been blocked.

: So I would appeal to Friday to rethink the week block and lift it, undoing the self-action, and parole Light current to time served. -] 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''block as clearly excessive. This is an unwarranted abuse of admin powers by user:Friday, who has previously proposed eliminating the reference desk: ''"I'm probably going against years of established practice here, but I fail to see how the reference desk adds encyclopedic value. It's a time-waster- why don't we just ditch the whole thing? Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)"'' It is very hard to assume good faith when an admin proposes eliminating the reference desk then applies grossly excessive penalties to frequent contributors. ] 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Just a few remarks and I'll probably bow out of this. As for warnings, there were ''months'' of warnings prior to this from different people. Light current has been blocked for trolling before. This was blatantly obvious trolling yet he kept up his "innocent and clueless" routine. He's just looking for a reaction out of people- check out his attempts to engage in conversation after the block, acting like he doesn't know what he did wrong. I did start the discussion here well before blocking, and so far there seems to be admin consensus for the block. So, I'm not personally inclined to change it, however my standard offer still stands: if any admin disagrees with this and wants to change it, I invite them to do so. I don't "own" my blocks any more than we own our edits. I realize a week seems harsh here, but he was very obviously trolling and this has been an ongoing problem, apparently for quite a long while. I acknowledge this is a tricky situation- hardly any of Light current's edits, taking in isolation, seem remotely blockable. This is why I sought input from others before and after the block. Also, please- '''let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight'''- I blocked one particular editor- discussion of other editors who are also problems are not relevant to this situation. If anyone cares to notice, after some initial disgust at the sorry state of the reference desk and me questioning whether it adds any value to the project, I've decided it IS valuable, so I've jumped in and started trying to help answer questions. I thank all the people who do useful work at the reference desk, or in any other part of the project. ] ] 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Repeat offender on image copyvios ==
<span class="plainlinks">]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> &nbsp;<small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> </span>) has (again) re-uploaded some of the same images (and mis-tagged them as being {{tl|GFDL-self}}) that were deleted last month. ] is clearly a copyrighted image with a watermark that points back to the owner . The user in question has uploaded this particular image to wikipedia at least three times now. Multiple image copyvio warnings have been left for the user by ], ], and myself. --] (]) 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:This is the third time around for most of these uploads. I've taken the rest of their images, all of which are suspect, to PUI and left them another message. No further action is needed right now. '''''×'''''] 09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Intervention regarding ] Images debate ==

For those familiar, this is more {{user|Miracleimpulse}} stuff. About a week ago I nominated a bunch of his low quality images that were used (or tried to be used) in the ] article: and . The main issue here is that these are low quality, grainy, skewed photos taken of a newspaper article from a webcam or something. They also are orphans. Anyway, Miracleimpulse has turned the debate into more of his POV-pushing (see deleted ]) rhetoric. Consensus is clearly against him. I guess I'd just like to have an administrator enter the discussion to try to get it back on track to be about the images, adn not the larger debate. Thanks. ] 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Having just perused Miracleimpulse's contribution history, the user's edits are certainly prolific, persistent, and ''highly'' focused topically. Is this a textbook case of a ] in action? --] (]) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Having no other edits outside of the various deletion discussions of the articles he's involved with, as well as POV pushing at two other semi-related pages, I believe I brought it up earlier, but Miracleimpulse is definitely an SPA.—] (]) 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Given the editor's continued hostility (disrupting an IFD is just icing on the cake) and POV pushing, I would be willing to certify a user conduct RFC or give a statement in an ArbCom case if needed. Some form of action (perhaps the community or topic ban proposed earlier) needs to be taken given his persistence, and his status as a single-purpose account is absolutely unquestionable given his unwillingness to contribute to any other subjects in the encyclopedia. --''']]''' 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Agreed. needs to stop, immediately, though.—] (]) 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::We need to do something about it. He has been doing this persistently, it's very disruptive to the IFD. I wouldn't mind helping out in any RFC, Mediation or AC case. Will keep track on his contributions too. ]]]] 08:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Those interested can see ] for more background relevant to this situation. ] 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:I like how he calls registered users anonymous in trying to get his way.—] (]) 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::We being called anonymous users??!!! It's quite lame though to call us anonymous users, we have accounts and stuff. Definitely not the other meaning of anonymous i.e. ]. ]]]] 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Also, or is it just too late for me to be up?—] (]) 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

* This is certainly a bizarre one alright. In the end, if MI were able to cite reliable sources for his "hoax" thesis then he might have a leg to stand on, but I don't recall any such, and this is not the first time I've looked at this article. The images are certainly of pretty poor quality. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
**The whole problem from the beginning has been that there are not ] that absolutely ] this contention of a hoax. It's conjecture and ] based on the primary sources that ] has found. ], but ] would appear to have an with ] and ], and apparently ] which he attributes to them (on a side note, it's been ] that I and or others are the person ] has been arguing with on that message board). He basically edits just those 3 articles. I've never really been involved in an ArbCom or user RfC before, has this gotten to the point where it would be considered for one of those?--] 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
***Hoax or not, POV or not, sourced or not, these images stink, and that's what the IFD is supposed to be about. MI can argue that they provide source material to back up his claims, and that can be debated elsewhere. But uploading such crappy images isn't the way to provide citations, and I can't seem to get that through to him. ] 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've blocked Miracleimpulse for a week while this discussion concludes. Regardless of what is decided here, I think we can all agree that his current behavior needs to stop now. --] 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:I am considering an RfC or ArbCom, but I'm going to hold off pending ]'s return to see if this continues (and because it is pretty unfair to initiate any proceedings while he is unable to respond to defend himself).--] 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::I think his history shows pretty well that he will continue, and I will support any action against him (I recommend ArbCom). --] 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Agreed, ] but I hold little hope he's going to come back substantially reformed.--] 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::And there reason to be concerned he migth even try to evade the block, since he has a history of using multiple account in other forums related to this passion of his (see ]) ] 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Either username or vanity... ==

But ] (] <small>•</small> ]) is editing {{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Johnny Briggs (cricketer)}}|3=Talk|4=talk}}. <br/>] 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:It's not vanity, well, unless he's a revenant. Maybe that should be added to his article. ] 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:: *face palm* How embarrasing for me. - ] 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::They can edit their own articles, must be a Famous Wikipedian. Hopefully not an impostor. ]]]] 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::You might have missed the ''revenant'' comment. Johnny Briggs died in the early 1900s according to the article, so it's ehm, probably an impostor. --] 10:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Celebrity usernames are only blocked for living or recently deceased celebrities. As such, this one's probably OK. Just a fan. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user is making some strange changes to sock notices. Please see . --] 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:That's funny. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Not really... he's been past the point of anything even resembling humour for about 3 days now. I've reverted all the ] violating edits, personal attacks, etc. Amazingly enough, he has 2 or 3 minor edits that weren't vandalism. --] <small>]</small> 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Funny...as in unbelievable, or funny that your fellow editors are being personally attacked?--] 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Inappropriate username ==

See ]. (Apologies if already taken care of). Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
*] blocked him. You can post these on ] in the future. --''']]''' 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Please Delete the link to my six-year-old resume ==

Hello,

In the discussion/vote about the possible deletion of the entry about me (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Pierce_%28second_nomination%29), the user timecop has chosen to link to a six-year-old resume of mine that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Also he's wrong at his slander towards me on two points.

He claims that I hadn't held a job for more than one year, when, if you look at the resume is clearly untrue (it's just a poorly written resume written by a friend of mine).

The debate is whether or not me or my blogging is notable. Something that I didn't start doing until 8/2001. Therefore how is a resume that ends in 2000 of any importance?

Further he claims that I am the "self-proclaimed blogfather." Although it's true that some call me that, including whoever wrote that line in my Misplaced Pages entry, I've always said that that term belongs with Glenn Reynolds, who has been also blogging since 2001, and whose politics I totally disagree with, but who has spawned more new bloggers than probably anyone. Any search of my 5 year old blog can back me up that I've never claimed to be the blogfather (http://tinyurl .com/yjaypw).

I am a big fan of Misplaced Pages. I think that large groups of intelligent people discussing things rationally are better than individuals. I think that you guys should stick to whatever you guys have done to get to this point. Obviously I disagree with those who have agendas against bloggers going out and trying to delete Wiki entries about bloggers, not just because I am one, but because it goes against one of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principals of only editing things that you are neutral toward (http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NPOV), which timecop and some others are clearly the furthest thing from neutral.

Not sure what you can do about that, or if you guys still feel strongly toward that fundamental, but if you can, will you please delete the link to my olde resume if it isn't too much of a bother.

It happens on this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Pierce_%28second_nomination%29) and he wrote it on 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, Tony Pierce 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Link removed, left message on your IP talkpage.--] 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



== changes on my userpage ==

] keeps changing the language setting on my userpage from 3 to 2. I dont think thats consistent with an alleged IQ of 135. Could somebody please tell him to stop?--] 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
*I've left him a message asking him to stop... and might I add that ] about someone's IQ while reporting something on the administrator noticeboard probably isn't the best idea. If he keeps editing your page, try reporting it ].--] 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

{{archive top}}
==Problems with ] and ]==

] says that Ian is on probation for science articles. ] are important for many of the articles we edit. Yet I'll note to ] had Ian including sources from a variety of unreliable sources, none of whom were basic researchers in the field. This included a science writer (not a scientist): , a self-employed crystal technician , and employees of . How are these reliable sources for basic research into quasar redshifts? They don't study the material. Ian knows this, but he continues his tactics anyway, in violation of his probation. I ask that he be banned from editting Wolf Effect. --] 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:You probably want ] (the ArbCom enforcement noticeboard) rather than ]. --] 13:47, 5 December 2006 (]]])
::Thanks. --] 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== ] ==

Dear Admins,
I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post, I don't know where else. This list was created on 4 April 2006 . To avoid sensitvites regarding ethnicities, the following disclamier was inserted; taken from ] and ]. The '''Disclamir''' is:

''This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the ] and Islamic Spain (]) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic".''

This happened with the guidence of two neutral admins: ] and ].
Now, 8 months later, a newcomer, ], simply deleted the disclaimer . This triggered a new ugly ethnicity war and the whole article started collapsing.

'''My apeal on you:''' is to put back the disclaimer and warn those who try to remove it.

Thank You,
] 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:] has already raised the issue of Jidan's behavior ]. This posting indicates that Jidan keeps edit warring and defying consensus. ] ] 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Please see also ] for a clear case of RFCU abuse by Jidan. ] ] 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer seems to be an important explanation for the list itself, so I've replaced it and commented on the takpage. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Putting the edit warring aside, i concur w/ Doc. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Breaching of my privacy ==
] '''repeatedly''' breaches my privacy by revealing of my real name: , . I warned him many times: and ]. I ask for his blocking. -- ] 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Um... Is there any particular reason you disguised your edits as "fixing a link" or some such? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at you find that before my fix it pointed to nowhere. -- ] 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:You created an account that was the same as your real name and someone has realized that the same person operates both accounts? It seems you let the cat out of the bag, not -jkb- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I exercised ]. Revealing of my real name after I dropped it is breaching my privacy. -- ] 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::See pls . As i do not have so much time as some sock puppets (I have to go on with the which is my , not this), I am preparing a brief report on the user V.Z. and his sockpuppets, but it will take some time. In the mean time: he (all his accounts) has no right to vanish, as he did not left Wikipedie, in the contrary, he is attacking other users again. Thx, ] 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is used for bad chosen accounts, not for people only. I '''wish''' to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages, but not under my real name which you use only to harass me, although I asked you to stop it. '''Many times''', but to no avail. -- ] 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:jkb, as Zacheus says, the right to vanish is used for poorly chosen accounts (amongst other things). Do not post personally identifiable information on the site - regardless of how right you think you are - it can lead to blocks. Zacheus, this sort of thing should be reported to ].
:Shell, does the right to vanish not apply here? Regardless of the user's actions, they have a right not to have their personal information posted on the site.-]<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Thanks a lot, I did not know that. -- ] 07:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::When the personal information is relevant as an earlier account name of said person, that's questionable. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Right to Vanish applies only is you wish to leave the project. Otherwise, contributions under your old username may indeed be relevant and worth referencing. --] 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Consulting the Right to Vanish page, "he Misplaced Pages projects will delete personal contributors at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative purposes." If this person has abandoned his previous account, then he cannot be accused of sockpuppetry, and thus, there is no administrative reason to include his personal information (including the previous account), if Zacheus is a person notable to merit an encyclopedia article, then this situation is also moot. It is up to -jkb- to either make a case for sockpuppetry involving that previous account with his personal name, or that the person merits an encyclopedia article. Until such time as he is making this case, there is no real need to include that username in any talk page, or article. --] 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Please keep cool. @ Localzik: poorly coosen name - this is a joke, I guess. The user was an admin-bureaucrat on the czech wikipedia for two years, so I do not think he is that poor to judge what name he choose. And the accounts are notable, as there are dozens of attacks on meta pages, here and on czech wikipedia. The user announced, he wants to stay here (), so I must assume, he will harrase here again as he did after some other annoucements of leaving. And ad Puellanivis: I it is noit up to me. I already showed where this user manipulated the community. The user mus show, that he will not. See e.g. his lies about my - as he says - deleted pages on the Czech wiki ( and some 5 next ones). Thx and follow this sock puppet better, it is your domain not mine, I have to do in mine. PLEASE. ] 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Point taken. @-jkb-: your position appears well justified, I will not argue with that. Personal attacks are inappropriate, and expressing that he has done personal attacks before, and continues to do so under a new name is appropriate, even if that previous name is his full name. As an admin-bureaucrat, I certainly think it clear that he should have had sufficient knowledge to judge the quality of his name before he chose it. @Zacheus: Sorry, but it looks like the cat is out of the bag, you should have known what you were doing picking your real name to begin with. Envoking a pseudonym in order to evade people whom you have harassed, and continue to harass after envoking a right to vanish can easily be claimed as sock puppetry. Your Right to Vanish only applies if you lay low, drawing attention to yourself after changing your name and then claiming a violation of privacy due to the mentioning of your previous name is readily apparent as your fault, and I don't see any reason for giving you any remedy at all. --] 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How was your current account first connected to your old account? If you are the one that said that account was you, then you waived your right to vanish. If he found out through some off-site means, then you might have a case against him, it would depend on the exact circumstances. --] 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:I have the impression one part of the situation isn't properly understood by some people here. The identity between the two accounts as such is not at issue. This user did two things in order to gain anonymity: (1) he gave up his old account and started up a new one, {{user|Zacheus}}; (2) in parallel, he had his old real-name account renamed to an anonymous abbreviation {{user|V. Z.}}. All he seems to be asking now is that when people have to refer to this old account, they use its current, anonymous handle rather than the old real-name one. This request seems reasonable, as it doesn't prevent anybody of talking about the old account and its contributions. Also, ] explicitly says that proliferation of real-name information should be avoided also in cases "of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives". Since under the current circumstances there's no factual need for anybody to refer to the old account ''under its old handle,'' I don't see why we shouldn't follow his request. Unless a refusal to do so were merely in retaliation for whatever disruptive he did earlier, but that really ought not to be the case. ] ] 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Appropriately stated, and I have to agree that someone should be enabled to leave an account behind and start a new one without being claimed as a sockpuppet. But using a cloak of newly aquired anonymity to evade detection and continue harassment, should not be considered appropriate. But again, how was it determined that the two accounts were related? If Zacheus owned his previous contributions, then unfortunately, he has owned them, and those where his signature remained as his full name. There is a lot of difficulty dealing with this matter, as it's a big grey area where it has to be determined where the allowance of personal information that has already been released is appropriate or not. But if Zacheus owned his previous posts, then he linked himself to his old account, which had contained his full name, whether the account was changed to an anonymous initials or not.

::This is why the Right to Vanish can be so tricky, because you have to literally vanish completely, or you will end up exposing yourself. I have the same problem in real life after a legal name change, I continue to be confronted with my old name all over my company, because the computer systems are insistant on maintaining a record of my previous name, which then shows up everywhere. While I entirely empathize with Zacheus and his inability to shed his previous identity, that contained his real name, I cannot see how blocking someone outright for exposing the previous name is justified. I can only imagine that counselling be sought for the person using the full name, and try and reach an agreement that he would refer afterwards to use only their initials, in order to protect the other person's personal name. After having an admin relate that such a disclosure is not necessary for administrative purposes, then continued pushing of his real name would warrant a block. But without notifying -jkb- that such action is inappropriate, it seems unjustified to block him, since he is dealing with prevously disclosed public information. --] 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Future Perfect has this one correct, and I find -jkb-'s actions to be borderline harassment. Since all the contribs by User:Vxxxx Zxxxx have been reattributed to ], there is no administrative or technical reason to keep the old name around. Pointing out that ] formerly operated ] is appropriate, and if a case can be made that V. Z./Zacheus has edited disruptively, then go ahead and make it. But there is no reason to refer to the individual's real name at this point and it begins to become harassment. ] 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went deeply through the various pages of discussion on -jkb- and Zacheus's talk pages. There is a lot going on there, and it would seem that this was an argument on the cs: wikipedia, which has now spilled into en:, both sides claiming that the other is in the wrong, both having disclosed each other's personal information, and both claiming that it's not their job to do the admin's work of tracking down sockpuppets, etc. They both say that the history is well established in the cs: wikispace, and while I don't argue that it is, there is no reason to expect English wikipedians to be able to access that information easily. I see below someone is asking for a translation of Zacheus's user page, and I think that is appropriate. Having a trustworthy cs: sysop looped in for a neutral point of view that can follow issues on the cs: side of things may be a good idea. But over all, it looks like this is one big mess of a feud, and we don't have the capacity to easily enforce any issues here on en: unless it's in English. --] 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, Zacheus released the personal information himself and after changing accounts linked himself to the old account. Because of that, we have no obligation to try and keep his personal information hidden. However, it would be nice to do so simply as an act of kindness, as it doesn't do any harm to use initials when referring to the old account. If -jkb- has a good reason to use the full name, he is entitled to, however it appears he's actually doing so simply to annoy Zacheus (I'm not going to even try and decide if Zacheus deserves it or not, I don't really care), which is not allowed under ]. So, to summarise, there is no privacy violation here, but there might well be some harassment going on (possibly both ways). --] 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:From my perspective at checkuser, where this first came up last week, Zacheus was never trying to hide the fact that the renamed account ] used to be his real name and belongs to him. For example, he has used the Zacheus account to change his old signatures. Since his actions are obvious to even a cursory check of his contribs , I think the main point here is to keep his real name off of google searches and so forth. In that context, I can't see any reason to continue using his real name except to keep the drama going. ] 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While he has never tried to hide the rename, he seems to have a practical misunderstanding of the ability to perform a Right to Vanish. I agree that avoiding his full name would be on good standing to avoid this whole issue, but Zacheus has made repeated edits to archived public information. After a sysop or someone corrects his edit, he then decries them as violating his Right to Vanish (after returning the archived information to the original state.) Zacheus would have us perform a massive system wide %s/User Name/U. N./g on every page, and remove his mistake of using his full real name in the first place. Rather than detract prying eyes from his relation to V. Z., he has made a concerted effort to bring those prying eyes to the issue, and would like to see the entire RtV policy rewritten to be a requirement, rather than a best-effort. The RtV policy page on metapedia says in fact itself that no one can really guarentee the RtV exists at all, it's simply asking for a best-effort from people to follow it. As such, people should avoid using the previous name in new content, and Zacheus should avoid damaging archived pages. Both should stop harassing each other, and just let the issue die. As such Zacheus has very few edits that are anything but a campaign against -jkd- and -jkd- has vew edits that are anything but a compaign against the other. If either insists on continuing this behavior, either should be banned temporarily, whether they are underlyingly justified or not. Neither is working towards a solution. --] 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree about your interpretation of Right to Vanish. I think if he wants to change archives (merely to change his name Vxxxx Zxxxx to V. Z., that is fine. Of course, it leaves a trail a mile wide to his current name, but it would have the effect of making his name difficult to find on a casual google search. I helped him change the checkuser case archive with his name on it, and I don't particular care if he changes other archives, as long as he is only doing the name change. He should not be changing pages in other user's space, but I would also prefer that jkb not use his full name. He was kicked off the cs Misplaced Pages under his full name, but he has not done anything here to hide from or avoid so there is no reason to use his full name here.
:On your other point I agree wholeheartedly. I have obtained a partial translation of his user page and he is replying, in Czech, to other users on cs with whom he can no longer converse since he is banned there. If Zacheus wants his right to vanish to be respected, he should stop importing drama from cs. ] 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::I appreciate the effort to protect his privacy, but is there any reason we don't simply ban this troll as well? Zacheus clearly has no intention to contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia. Since his banning from cs, he's continued to troll here and on Meta, continuing uncivil language, wasting our time, and '''done nothing useful'''. And we already know he's a troll (banned by the cs arbcom). Any objections to blocking him? ]·] 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I guess I'm wishy-washy on it. On the one hand, if he stopped using his user page to carry on the drama from cs, I'd be willing to leave him alone to see if he will become a good contributor. His prior account {{user|V. Z.}} has over 700 mainspace edits, which is not a lot, but not chicken feed either. On the other hand, part of his arb case involved rather serious allegations of privacy violations on his part, and he hasn't done anything since he arrived here except carry on the cs drama. I certainly wouldn't stick my neck out to unban him if someone else banned him. ] 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Admin plays detective...what next? ==

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at ] and], which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play '']'' theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Misplaced Pages's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, ''because'' he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you ] types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). ] 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. ] 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not ''too'' clever. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. ] 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Misplaced Pages's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.
:::::::The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.
:::::::You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. ] 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. ] 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Misplaced Pages terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. ] ] 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months ] tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is ] (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). ] demonstrates that he violates ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Possibly ] also. The damage he caused at ] has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Misplaced Pages. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at ] then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of {{user|Center-for-Medieval-Studies}} after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical {{user|AWilliamson}} (see of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, ] in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Misplaced Pages on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the ] article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. ] 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::I've got to give a nod to ]. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was ''another'' disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:I would also support a ban.—]&bull;] 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::] has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that ] will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. ] (]) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from ]'s talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly ] and ]; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics. He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--] 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I ''am'' an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Misplaced Pages. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. ] 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.
*The most serious allegations revolved around the claim that the editor (or someone suspected of being the editor) was using a fanciful academic publication ("Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" within the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series") and a fanciful nonprofit organization ("Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies") to dishonestly include his own original research in Misplaced Pages. But a quick search finds the following entry at a government site which lists this organization as a registered nonprofit in good standing:
*And a search at Google Books finds the allegedly "bogus" book in print:
*A search at Google Scholar finds the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series" although only one item is currently indexed.
The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. ] 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was ''much'' too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization. Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications (although drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there ''is'' a Margaret Walsh who is a preofessor of American economic and social history. Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. ''I'' could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user has been engaged in trolling, but due to the nature of such users I would rather not issue a block myself. Among issues was where he called another editor mentally unstable, various things in an AfD he's involved in (namely: accusing myself and another editor of reasoning in an unjust emotional manner, accusing myself of emotionally corrupting the other user, accusing the other user of blind acceptance of my argument, etc.), talk page nonsense , and so on. -- ] <small>(])</small> 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:This editor's comments and insinuations on ] (see recent page history) are totally unacceptable and warrant a block. ] 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::You're not wrong. I've given him 24 hours to cool off. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Arguably lenient if it's a static IP, but it's a first block, so we'll see. I might have used different wording in the block log summary, though. :) ] 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Also of note, his user account is ] , which has a bit of a history of this . We'll just have to see what he does off of the block. -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Account is a single purpose account for the purpose of promoting thier site The ULC Monastery. See thier contrib list http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Brdennis ] 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Delete posting of minor user's personal information? ==

At one "Kristi" posted a phone number, vague location (and we reveal the IP address) and a birthdate. I deleted it from the talk page, however, given the concerns addressed in ], which concludes "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." should this be deleted from the edit history and the user cautioned?--] 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
: The fact that rather highly publicised case just closed minutes ago is a complete coincidence. Teenagers are interested in ] all the time. That talk page is clearly the ideal place to post declarations of love. I would never, ever suggest this was a troll baiting us. But, even in all assumptions of good faith, let's caution the user just a bit. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::True enough, however user was an anon. Removed this using oversight. Thanks for the heads up. ] 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::When I clicked on the diff provided by Prosafiles, I got an "Error" message, which I instantly realized had been produced by Fred's "oversighting" of the information in question. It's always good when the system works. However, when I read the Error message, which looks like a generic message covering several possible reasons why the diff is unavailable, one of the things it says is: "Revisions that contain personal information disclosed without permission may have been permanently removed." Without permission. '''Whose''' permission? One would think, the subject of the information. However, here anonymous "Kristi" posted what purports to be information about herself, so presumably she had her own permission. Maybe the message should be made just a bit more generic, maybe by replacing "disclosed without permission" with "that has been inappropriately disclosed." In that way it would cover all information that has been disclosed inappropriately (with that word being partly defined in the recent ArbComm case, with further development possibly to follow), not just information that is inappropriate because it is "disclosed without permission." (I do realize that things like Error messages may be written by a very small number of people who may or may not regularly read pages like this, so if there is a more appropriate place to mention this, someone please let me know.) ] 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Whose permission? I'd say the answer is her parents' or legal guardians'. <span style="font-family:serif;">&mdash;]✰]</span> 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, unless I missed something along the way, there is no requirement for minors to have parental permission to edit Misplaced Pages, although any responsible adult would discourage a person from publishing a personal telephone number here. I think 6SJ7 has a point, though, because I had had the same passing thought a few days ago. A more generic message would be useful. ] 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I believe that's the generic message when one tries to look at an oversighted edit. It "may" be that a revision that disclosed personal information without permission has been removed, or it may be that information was removed for another valid reason. There is no need to be overly specific with regard to the oversight explanation. ] 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== This user has it all ==

I want to report ] also posts with ] for a couple of things:
* on article ].
* on article ].
* on article ].
* on article ].
* on ]. Even ended up with me getting the page protected, and him getting banned because he broke ]. He also avoided his ban by continuing his vandalism.
* on my user page.
*He is highly uncivil towards everyone, prone to using personal attacks and can't seem to follow Misplaced Pages policy in any regard. See ] for examples.
*He is also a suspected sock of ].
I have tried to level with him, I have tried to meet him half way by saying that he can open up a straw poll to get his website linked, but then I checked his edit history and found that he has been placing his links on other articles, as well as vandalizing others. Hope you guys can figure something out, because I don't want to continue this. <strong>]</strong> ]/]/]/) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:He has been blocked once(''24hrs'') for disruptive editing.. But most of his edits seem to be spam or vanity.--] 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:: ] may be a last resort here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user ({{user|I luv JH forever}}) Has only edited her? Talk and User pages. I asked them if they were planning on actually participating in the encyclopedia, and they deleted my question and continued with the chatter on their Talk page. I'd like to suggest they start actually participating in the encyclopedia or they'll be blocked and their Talk and User pages deleted and protected. Any objections? ]|] 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Social networkers are delete on sight, IMO. Best to nip it in the bud before they get too settled in. ] ] 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::So this actually violates policy? Huh.. All I really noticed was a bunch of incoherent chatter.--] 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Policy? All we need in this case is "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia". I'm sure some policy page somewhere says this, for those that like the written down version of policy. ] ] 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Gonna have to s-protect her talk page too, since that's all she's editing, and she's able to edit it, even if she's blocked.
:::::Just as a note, it seems I've noticed more and more of these lately, many appearing to be from teenagers or younger. I saw one comment that their school had blocked chat sites so they were using Misplaced Pages. ] 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::] is only a guideline, not a policy, but under ], it specifically says, '''''A weblog relating your non-Misplaced Pages activities, Extensive discussion not related to Misplaced Pages''''' ]|] 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:The goggles do nothing! I support a blank, block and protect. ] 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I attempt to read the incoherent ramblings, it looks to me like two or more people talking to each other, which would make it a group account, and that ''does'' violate policy. ]|] 22:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Also, ] covers this (and is policy too) - 'Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site' and 'Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.'. I'd say block and maybe contact the school to ask them to say something to the kids?-]<sup>]</sup> 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== User name ==

The user ] is a vandal account created a few months ago with a name identical to mine. Can this editor be blocked to avoid anyone thinking I am responsible for his edits? <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They haven't made any edits since July, and it does seem like a likely name somebody could come up with without any evil motives. If they continue to edit, then we can deal with it, but I don't see a problem right now. ]|] 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



== ] ==

There are some extremely unpleasant arguments (including swearing) going on here. Unfortunately it is difficult to work out who is leaving the comments as most are IP address. Can an admin have a look? Thanks. ] 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Working on it. Giving warnings out....--] 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::OK, I've warned all the IP addresses that actually made personal attacks(which, ironically enough, turns out to be all of them), and warned poorcharterboy for incivility, due to sarcasm.--] 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Many thanks. ] 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::There were only four or five, just a whole lot of edits.--] 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==

This user has on many occassions: done personal attacks, assumed bad faith and reverted pages (repeatedly) without consent of other editors. He tends to "control" pages, and reverts to his personal opinion. He rarely discusses in talk pages about major changes and/or reverts. He also seems to enforce his own polices on some pages: which include ] and ] as recent examples. He has been caught violating 3RR in the past, and has came close to doing it other times as well. Other people can't seem to edit pages he likes, otherwise it's automatically reverted due to his opinion only. Some recent problems with him are a matter of a simple match order of an upcoming event. The order doesn't have to be in a certain order, but he seems to think it must be an exact copy of the match order listed on an official site of the event. There is no Pro Wrestling project policy on this, so it's his own policy that he believes everyone must follow... otherwise he reverts. Talk page discussions have started about this, and settled nothing because he won't budge on the matter. One person's opinion shouldn't be dominating articles. ] 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Read the message at the top of this page. You might want to read ] and perhaps start an ] instead. ]]] 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism on the Windows Live Mail Page ==

I'm a new wikipedian and I would like to report an act of vandalism on the Windows Live Mail page. I don't know how to report this but if this is read, please take the neccessary sction. Thank you.
:Taking this one. ] ] 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Revert war on a question page ==

There's a revert war in progress at ] over whether a question posed by {{user0|Cyde}} should remain, or whether it is too inflammatory. Personally, I figure all bets are off with these things and that it's up to candidate whether he answers the question or not. Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), {{user0|Paul August}} is away until the 7th of this month. I bring this here for commentary on the broad question of whether admins, or anybody, should remove questions from these pages when the wishes of the candidate are unknown. I have no strong view beyond desiring an end to the revert war and the engendering of some good will here and there. ] ] 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Its over.] 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::It's over for the moment because I've given up in the face of your twice reverting and twice undoing the protection I put in place in an effort to stop the revert war. You have no right to undo another admins' actions without prior discussion. If you disagreed with my protection, you should have discussed it with me, or on this page, but you seem to feel you're above that. I wouldn't mind so much if you were acting to keep trolling off the page, but wheel warring in order to restore trolling? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Um... You can't just call a question trolling, without any sort of agreement, and then ''protect the page'' to prevent the "trolling question" from being added. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Of course I can. I consider the question to be a veiled personal attack intended to keep the Giano/Geogre/Kelly Martin situation going, with no purpose other than to cause trouble. Others were reverting it, Cyde kept restoring it, and so I removed it and protected. It was a perfectly justifiable admin action. If Geni disagreed, all he had to do was drop me a note or post here. He should not have taken it upon himself to unprotect and restore the question &mdash; twice. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Assuming for the sake of argument that your logic there makes sense, which I'm not sure it does, you were most certainly involved in the revert war, meaning that you are not allowed to protect. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I haven't been involved in editing that page before, or in any of the election questions about this issue. I removed the question, asked Cyde not to restore it, and protected. This was a perfectly legitimate series of admin actions. Anyone who disagreed only had to discuss it with me; I'm always open to undoing my own admin actions if people put forward a good argument. What I don't like is for others to assume they know better without any kind of discussion. Geni has a habit of doing that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::. You removed it once, and asked him not to restore it. He did. You then reverted his restoration and protected the page so it would not be re-added. ''You can not use protection to enforce your preferred version of a page.'' -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Amarkov, this will be my last comment about this, but I must object to your allegation that I mixed up the editor/admin roles. It was clear from the start that I was taking admin action, because I warned Cyde that he was behaving disruptively and risked a block. There's no need for people to arrive on pages waving a giant "I'm here as an admin" tag. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of all of our sanity, if Paul August has half the even temper and calm judgment that well over a hundred voters have expressed that they think he does, he can decide what to do with his own question page when he returns and whether it is worth answering or removing. (Sadly, it is by no means the most snide statement surrounding the elections that I have seen thus far.) I would think that it would be far less disruptive than warring over it, and it may well be informative to see how candidates handle such questions; it's not as though arbitrators don't get them in the course of their terms. ] ] 01:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: Complete agreement with Mindspillage/Kat. For the record, SlimVirgin wasn't the first to remove Cyde's question (in a slightly different format) - Giano and Ghirlandajo removed slightly earlier versions. I was barely brave enough to ] ] (with great trepidation, since they're experienced contributors) ... but I am not foolhardy enough to get in a singlehanded wheel war with the legendary SlimVirgin. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== High School Musical 2 - under attack ==

There seems to be a lot of vandalism on ], I have reverted back quite a bit, but I can't figure out what's real and what's fake, it seems to be a number of users who need immediate blocking. --] 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe the page should be protected? ] 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::That may not solve it, the last piece of vandalism was by a registered user who seems to be mostly adding valid info, but inserted some obscenities and has a so-so history. Another was a registed user who is vandal only, but not enough to take him to AIV. A lot of IP addresses but some edits are ok and some are clearly vandalism, and a lot of reverts and changes that may be correct, or hoaxes. Even though I reverted back quite a bit, there still may be problems in the article. It would help to have someone who knows the subject. --] 02:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I fully protected it. None of the participants adding the disputed info were admins, as far as I know. Sort it out on the talk page. ]]] 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks, removing all that questionable stuff was good --] 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Attack/hoax page requiring immediate deletion ==

Could someone please speedy ], close the Afd, and deal with the author. Note that per Google, there is a real person by that name. ] 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Done within one minute, either coincidentally or quickly, thanks Guinnog. ] 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== 86.143.123.152 ==

The edits from this IP , 2 of them were vandals. I reverted the edit on Westlife's article but would like someone to look into the other 3 for actions.

--] 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Both others rolled back. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Block of a user I'm involved in. ==

There has been an anon editing from a semi-dynamic IP on the ] who has been repeatedly warned for making personal attacks and engaging in major civility violations. his latest personal attacks and I've therefore decided to block the anon for 24 hours. Since I am involved on the page I have submitted the block here for review. ] 06:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:The block was appropriate. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Continued reinsertion without sourcing ==

An IP, {{IPvandal|74.134.242.248}}, has continually the same unsourced sentence to ] (see the history or his contribs for the edit warring). despite explanation and warnings on his/her talk page and repeated directions to explanation at ]. The IP has violated the spirit (though not the letter) of 3rr. Please block it.--] ] 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah, and did I mention rank incivility? No? That, too.--] ] 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:I've commented on the user's talk page; it appears the user is edit warring against the talk page consensus, and not waiting for a reliable source to come out. <s>Perhaps this could be considered a last warning? Anybody, feel free to add to my comments, or block as you see fit.</s> Use appears to have been warned a lot before; perhaps a block is warranted. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::I've warned the editor a couple of times, but he appears to be disregarding any attempts at reason. He's posted the university chancellor's phone number (presumably the office number) and told us to verify the assertion by calling. I don't know if he'll come around, but no sign of it yet. -] · ] · 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== further out of wikipedia contact ==

Ok, I reported on this once before . If you want to read the completed consensus on it, it's here: (last diff I found on the topic). Well, the guy is back and still sending me emails to join social/dating/contact networks by email. I'm getting sick of this. Can something be done about this? I've told him twice to stop.] ] ] ] ] 07:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I don't really see this as a matter for action on Misplaced Pages. ] - ] 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:: It is hard to see how it isn't. The person in question is using the Misplaced Pages email function to spam. Swat, have you tried simply listing the person's email address in a spam filter? ] 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::: This is not my reading of the note, particularly the previous report. It seems they have obtained this person's address, and are spamming them privately or are feeding their email address into dating sites as an "invite your friend" type feature. ] - ] 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Personal attack block review: Kumarnator ==

I've blocked {{user|Kumarnator}} for 48 hours for making remark. I'm putting the block for review. Also, this user has previously been blocked for on the same user (who was blocked himself).

I'm putting the block on review. Feel free to unblock if necessary (but given the racist comments, I hardly expect that to happen.) Thanks. --] 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*Support block. ]] 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
* Support block. - ] (]) 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*Support block, but it is more lenient than I would have been. Sorry if I'm not supposed to respond to this.--] 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
**Non-admins are welcome to join in the discussions on the admin noticeboards. ]] 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*Support block. And yes I agree. It probably should've been for a week since he had just gotten off a 24 hour block for physical threats...and that one should've been 48. :) We have a very low tolerance for both overt racism and threats. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

**Well, feel free to extend the block. Thanks. --] 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*Support block as non-admin, and IMO, it should be a week. ] 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*I am an Arab myself and i really am not sensitive to comments like that. However, i am at the same time a wikipedian and i am wondering if users like this would be able to enhance this encyclopaedia ever! I fully support the block but i'd be harsh if it is repeated next time. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Fresh batch of usernames ==

<s>] seems a fairly evident delete, and </s>taking into account his contributions, I'd say that ] is over the line too. ] 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Crap...I may have violated 3RR :( ==

Was on RC patrol and encountered a questionable edit of ] by {{User|Uae0707}}. Here's what happened:

1) I saw and reverted (I think the reversion of this content is OK, as it's pretty much an obvious POV rant).
2) The user a few minutes later. I reverted and gave a <nowiki>{{content2}}</nowiki> warning.
3) Same thing again: . I reverted.
4) Then the user added a toned down version of his previous additions: . I didn't look closely at it, and thought the user was just readding the same material, since it seemed so similar, so I reverted and gave the user a content3 warning. :(
5) The user readded it, and I then saw that the obvious POV was gone.

Anyway, do what you must :(.

As far as the content goes, I still think the material the user added does not belong in the article, but I feel some other editor should probably look into it, rather than me. ] 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Blocks are not punitive, if it was a good faith mistake there is no reason why you would be blocked. I can also understand you reverting that content, very highly unsourced. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 11:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::I think the spirit of ] allows this. The initial edits being reverted were sufficiently bad that they fall within the scope of sections 3.6 (vandalism) and 3.7 (libel). ] - ] 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::It doesn't matter what type of edits you were reverting. If you've stopped now and promise to stop, then nobody will block you for 3RR. --] <small>]</small> 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::(Do you want a bet?) ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Try using some common sense and figuring out that I don't speak for every single administrator on this website. --] <small>]</small> 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Beg pardon, but that's his point. It only takes one. ] ] 13:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Perhaps. Such things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but the general rule is to unblock if they promise to stop. There may be exceptions of course, though I can't think of any. --] <small>]</small> 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well that's heartening...thanks! ] 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Vandal was also duly warned but carried on, I have blocked him so the risk of further reversions should be small. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==A ]/] case==
A bunch of socks, , , and later under ], has been edit warring originally on ] for weeks now. He/she has been removing the <nowiki>{{advert}}</nowiki> tag which was put by ]. Many other established editors like ] and ] were reverting back to Revragnarok version. I had semi-protected the article on . The IP's commented on the talk page a few times but the message was always " 'HOW can MicroSoft be a GLOBAL Player?' - please choose Micro or GLOBAL!" and then created a section under the title of '']''. I had to semi-protect the article leaving a note at the ] inviting the IP to engage in a serious discussion and try to reach a concensus. I received only silly arguments and nothing serious. I informed him/her that he/she is in the breach of a few wiki policies and i am still being patient. Now, he/she was found tagging a few articles (i.e. ], ], ]) with the advert tag. This is w/o any doubt a breach of ].

Could you please help on how to deal w/ this case as it is difficult to execute a range block in this case. Cheers -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:after triggering you explicitly to ''']''' with one word '''Bullshit''' i must determine you do NOT see ''']''' and my given answers... therefore: FiRST interprete ''']''' seriously AND then talk with me... ] 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::You are the one who ''should'' discuss the matter w/ editors at the article. I got nothing to do w/ the content as i am not involved in the article. My jugdment is that Rev gave his reasons why he tagged the article and you haven't yet countered his arguments. Instead you have been reverting non-stop using the socks i mentioned above. In conclusion, you should have been blocked by now as per the non-respect of the Sockpuppetry. I explained this to you and waited your counter-arguments. I haven't received any so far. I didn't want to block you as i've been thinking you are a newbie and not a vandal. However, disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point (tagging other articles) using the socks is warranting a block. So, once for all, please use your registered account above and discuss your issues using better arguments to win your case. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==User: BooyakaDell, sock of user:JB196?==

] was banned in September for edit warring over tags and creating conflicts on numerous pages that have to do with ]. He continued to vandalized pages as an anonymous user to the point that some articles had to be semi-protected several times over. ] registered in Mid-November, and has virtually the same modus operandi, editwarring over tags and adding PROD's to wrestling articles he thinks are not notable (not a valid reason for PROD'ing on several articles). Due to length of time between original user being banned, and this possible sockpuppet account being created, checkuser was not an option, although there is still a suspected sockpuppet account page. Any suggestions? Thanks! ] 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Mount Rushmore ==

] seems to be a target of concerted vandalism; semi may be appropriate. --] ] 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:yes, admins, please get ASAP. We'll have to revert to an early version anyway bc of thick vandalism. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Got it. ] 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Extra-long article project==
Hi, I recently started a new project the: ]; if interested please join. Thanks: --] 13:30, 6 December 2006 (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: