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 09:34, 12 December 2006 editSteve Hart (talk | contribs)1,288 edits Longtime disruptive behaviour by User:Amoruso← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:10, 24 December 2024 edit undoSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,324 edits →Concern About a New Contributor: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{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-->
==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
:But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (])
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
:::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
* Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
== User:Light current ==


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 .
<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)


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


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


:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I 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)
::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===None of this matters===
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
::::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)


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.
::::::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)


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (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)


:@]: 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 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)
::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)


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
::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)
{{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 -->
:::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
: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)
:::How do you know it was related to masturbation? THat interpretation is purely in your mind!--] 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I 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)
::::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)
*: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)
::::::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)
*: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.
:::::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)
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &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===
::::::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)
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Mgtow definition ==
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)
{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ]&nbsp;] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: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)
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
::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)


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.
:::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 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 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)
: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 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)
*{{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)


== ] ==
: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)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (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)
: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.
:::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)


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.
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)


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.
:Very good point, it's not nearly as serious as if you had asked him and he had refused- friday did it himself and then blamed him. LC posted it in the first place of course but he should have a chance.. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (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)


: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)
*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) ::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)
*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)
::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)
*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)


== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
*'''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)
{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
*I 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)
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
:*I agree with ]. ] 11:22, 6 December 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 .
:*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)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (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)
: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 ] ==
:::In what areas? The ref desk? I don't recall having ever seen you there.


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)
*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)


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (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)
::{{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)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
::*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)
{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive editing ] ==
:::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)
{{atop
| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
*'''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)


https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
::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)


https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
:::I think that calling SCZenz' attempts to improve the desk according to his own understanding of purpose and policy; calling those efforts "vandalism" is baiting and he was justified to remove it. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I also think that admins that "don't like the reference desk" should give it a wide berth. I am not judging anyone there, I am simply making a comment. I further hope that LightCurrent (and others) can come to understand that the banter and off-topic junk on the Desks is an enjoyable '''aside''' to the real work of answering questions and is never to be started or encouraged as an end-in-itself. I hope that LC gets something out of all this effort and remains on the Desk. --] 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
*'''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.


] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
: 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)
:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


(nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''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)
{{abot}}


== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
:*Agreed, ] should recuse himself from all matters related the Ref Desk, as his extreme bias against the Ref Desk negatively affects his judgment in such matters. ] 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
*]


Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock?
*'''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)


There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::You say '''let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight''', after having said "there seems to be admin consensus for the block", thus implying that you ignore the opinions and consensus of non-Admins, and in particular Ref Desk contributors. Can't you see how ignoring the opinions of non-Admins causes just the type of problem you claim you want to avoid ? If you want everyone to work together, then you need to respect the opinions of everyone, not just Admins. ] 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Attention! I'm going rogue and starting a wheel war!'''
:Er, by which I mean that I'm lifting the block on Light current. Per THB, I'm paroling him. I don't think that the block was undeserved, but I do think that LC has acknowledged () that some of his comments were inappropriate for the forum in which he made them and that his judgement has not been up to snuff on occasion.
:I think that leaving the block in place will shed more heat than light, as the mounting evidence here would suggest. LC is often a useful and productive contributor to the Ref Desk, and &ndash; providing he can restrain his occasional impulse towards off-colour humour and borderline newbie-biting &ndash; it would be a shame to lose that. I fear that we may have rushed into a block just when LC was starting to 'get' that the weight of opinion did ''not'' support his behaviour. I think it appropriate to give him a shot at reform. Note that I do not use the word 'parole' lightly, and I ''do'' expect that LC will make every reasonable effort to temper his remarks. His block ''will'' be restored (by me or by someone else) if he doesn't avail himself of this opportunity.
:Note also that I expect other parties (both to this specific incident and those involved in the broader Ref Desk discussions) to refrain from sniping, kicking LC or others while down, taunting, gloating, oh-so-'clever' remarks, or anything else that might be taken as a lapse in civility. I'll be all over any sort of 'I-told-you-so', namecalling, 'You-don't-have-a-right-to-talk-about-Ref-Desk-because-you're-not-there-as-much-as-I-am-so-sod-off', or other petty ugliness like stink on cheese. We're at the Reference Desk. We're supposed to be there to help our fellow human beings, and we're doing it because we're ''nice, friendly, helpful people''. Is everyone clear on that? ](]) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
::TenOfAllTrades, thank you for opening the door to lift his block. It would have been better had Friday done it, but Friday did leave the door unlocked and let it be known that it was unlocked, so that's a good thing. -] 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block''' on general principle. This seemed like a reasonable judgement call by the admin, and it isn't a horribly extended or indefinite block, so we shouldn't be second-guessing it. - ] 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*It is hard to assume good faith when Friday applies an exceptionally long bloc for a minor offense on the part of a frequent contributor to Reference desk after Friday has said ''"I'm very serious. I stay away from the reference desk but have dropped in a few times lately due to reports of problems there. I was rather shocked at what I saw. I suppose we must let each editor contribute in their own way, but I've not seen a bigger time-waster here than the RD. This is an encyclopedia- the goals of the project go no further. When I buy a copy of Brittanica, I've bought an encyclopedia. I don't expect that this includes a guy who will come to my house, hold my hand, and read it to me. Is it reasonable to expect a reference desk? Not in my opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a forum, and not a place to get other people to do your research for you. Friday (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)"'' ] 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


== Comments by Locke Cole ==
**Please note that my request to be utterly civil and courteous and to try to put this behind us wasn't actually solely for the pleasure of hearing myself type. It would be appreciated if you stopped quoting that remark on talk pages and noticeboards in an attempt to push Friday out of this discussion. If you look upward about six comments, you'll see that Friday has reconsidered his opinion on the Ref Desk, and is actually endeavouring to be a helpful participant there. In the same comment, he also explains that the block was not for a single incident, but for a pattern of behaviour &mdash; which we all hope and expect has now been remediated &ndash; from an editor who has received many warnings about his conduct. I will also note that Friday has expressed support for my approach to handling this block, and that he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy. I expect that he would have done exactly what I did had I sent him a polite message&mdash;I was just impatient at the bickering here. It is not appropriate to kick Light current while he's down, ''nor is it appropriate to try to lynch Friday while he's being reasonable and accomodating''. ](]) 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
:::I think the idea is that if an admin is only starting to understand a project as radically unique as the RD, maybe he shouldn't be allowed to assert his admin powers there. Which I don't necessarily agree with by the way --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, can I assert my opinion into this one? I don't know if it's valuable here, but it looks like there's a long history of Light Current managing to find a way to get blocked, then unblocked. And the one time he wasn't unblocked was by Pschemp, and he's still bitter about that. In other words, perhaps we need to make it clear that infinite patience doesn't exist, and constantly walking the oline between appropriate and inappropriate, then acting like "poor persecuted me" when he called on it, won't be tolerated forever. That being said, he is a long-time contributer. I dunno: it's "yes, we love you at Misplaced Pages, no, you can't make masturbation and porn jokes out of context at ref desk after being warned for it." ]<sup>]|]</sup> 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm confident that enough people have seen this pattern of behavior to ensure that it won't be allowed to continue unchecked. (can't keep my big mouth shut, sorry). ] ] 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
Why are we so soft on a user who continues in a pattern of pushing the line? LC's actions appear childish and are frustrating when they happen again and again. i see this block as a cumulative effect of LC's own actions. Friday was right to block in such a situation, although, possibly a week was too long, but I do not know enough of this users background to judge. Regardless of the length of block, if these actions continue then the blocks should become progressively more severe. LC's claims of innocense, given the masturbation link posted by Friday above, are laughable. Go to usenet for toilet humour. ] ] 17:43, 6 December 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)
*'''Strong oppose block'''. Friday has a clear conflict of interest- see their back-and-forth in the latest archive of the RD talk. Other than that I would have said that he deserved it anyway (after due process, not this one day AN/I fiasco) but lately he really has been quite good about responding to criticisms and having an open mind about his behavior. Also, I'd like to say that I appreciate that friday is starting to understand the point of the RD. Admittedly it seems overblown and unnecessary at first glance but there really is a huge demand for it and light current is overall a positive contributor. I'd hate to lose him over this --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:14, 6 December 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-->
Well just to round off this discussion, I would like to say that all this apparent waste of time has indeed shown something:
:::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}}


== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
We '''all''' make mistakes, some more than others. He who never made a mistake, never made anything. Let us not judge too harshly, lest we be judged in the same manner. Peace on all! 8-)--] 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
Oh yes, I'd like to thank all my supporters for defending me and pleading for me. And I will '''try''' not to hold it agianst anyone who supported my blocking. I think we ahave all leaneda little from this unpleasant episode. 8-)--] 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


I'm coming in late to this, but I have to say that I oppose the block. I do think Light current is too flippant on the RD, and it would not hurt for him to be mentored, but I'm trying awfully hard to wonder why so many admins are suddenly hopping into the RD and tsktsking when they aren't regular participants. The RD has been running fine for months now, there is nothing wrong with the way those of us who do frequent do things there. We need to quit warring over this, guys. Try talking first, blocking second. I would support an RfC on Light Current. ]|] 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
::Light current, rather than giving somewhat veiled threats to those who opposed you, is it possible you could just admit wrong-doing, say you're sorry, and promise to stop in the future? Amazingly, you seem unable to do this. Already on your talk page, talking about the ] on RD (having masturbation comments removed, what awful tyranny). Two ounces of penitence goes a long way. This is the kind of half-hearted backdoor response that's gotten you blocked 7 times. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>


:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't see how his opinion on censorship, listed on his own talk page, can be grounds for a complaint here. ] 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was responding to his above comment. i only came back and added the thing about censorship later when I found it. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I am a completely neutral party here, having never even been to the RD. However, I just want to chime in and note that, after reading this report and the one above about the block of ], it seems to me that a number of users view the RD as a fiefdom and a lot of the debate here has been about "people who frequent" the RD and letting them do things their way, and criticisms of users who "don't usually hang around" at RD but nonetheless voiced opinions in these matters, as though they had no right to do so. Seems a little skewed to me.--] 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
'''Update''': Since Light current was unblocked, I noticed a set of edits to ] such as one where the edit summaries made it sound like he was removing jokes. (Light current is currently upset at ] that people have been criticising joke answers to articles.) However he was removing content from an article ''about'' a set of jokes. The removal was reverted, so that's not an issue. But, I ''really'' have to wonder about ] here. I'm not doing anything about this myself, due to the complete uproar caused by my recent block on Light current, and my own questioning of my remaining supply of AGF. However I bring this here in case others have opinions on this. ] ] 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
:My edits at ] have nothing at all to do with my recent blocking. i dont know why Friday is continuing to persecute and stalk me in this manner.--] 02:00, 9 December 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)
::I note with regret that Light current has opted to try to push the envelope of WP:POINT (and also made at least one attack on Friday) since I unblocked him as a gesture of good faith. I have restored the remaining six days of his original block. ](]) 05:14, 9 December 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.
:::Based on Light Current's recent edits to his talk page (where he's making a production out of his block with countdowns, selectively deleting comments, and so on, I'm contemplating protecting his User and User talk pages for the remaining duration of his current block to help keep him from stuffing his foot any further into his mouth. Thoughts? - ]</small> (]) 02:11, 11 December 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...}} ===
::::That seems quite excessive, to me. Allowing him to vent may actually be a therapeutic thing. And what's wrong with a countdown, exactly ? There should be far more tolerance for what a person says on their own user page and talk page than on Misplaced Pages in general. ] 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::What's wrong is that the user simply refuses to ever admit culpability, no matter how many people tell him to knock it off. While I'm not going to accuse Light current of being a dick (I don't really know if he is one), I can point out the famous ] addage that "if enough people tell you you're wrong, they probably have a point". Light current needs to learn to stop trying to game the system at every turn, and then complaining about the unfairness of his blocks. He needs to learn that Misplaced Pages is a community, and he needs to abide by community rules, and not his own ] rules; that's why a talk page block would work. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:42, 11 December 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.
::::StuRat & PatStuart, I appreciate your feedback. I've decided to institute the protection, and I'd like to respond to your concerns (Stu). First, the block isn't meant to be therapeutic, blocks are to prevent disruption. They aren't punitive, they're to stop a problem. The intent with temporary blocks is to break the chain of disruption long enough that the user can reset and be productive on their return. Pat's quick summary above is very accurate, and reflects my concerns here too. Not only is this user failing to acknowledge any culpability (note that on his user page, he talks about how "responding" to criticism should somehow equal changing behavior, yet makes no attempt to) but there's also the matter of his/her editing of his or her talk page. A blocked user is allowed to edit their own stuff when blocked primarily so they can have an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the block and appeal appropriately. Instead, Light Current has used this to create grudge lists, working to categorize bad faith edits, announcing alternate interpretations of policy, and nest building in general. I think LC has the capability of being a valuable editor, but his or her shennanigans in user space are going to draw a legit lightning bolt. Also, a couple of posts from other users may be lending to LCs opinion that he or she is a victim of some great conspiracy, and that's hardly conducive to becoming a good editor. I'll protect it now, and ask that any admins who disagree contact me before unprotecting so we can discuss it. I'll make a point of checking for messages frequently. - ]</small> (]) 22:05, 11 December 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
:::::If Light current is blocked, then why is his userpage protected? His user talk page is one thing, but why did you protect his user page, Chairboy? ] 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Howdy, Picaroon! Did both at the same time per above for the same reason. I've got my fingers crossed that he'll come out of the other side of the block intact and that he'll take Zoe up on the mentorship offer. - ]</small> (]) 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
:::::::I can't imagine how he could disrupt anything besides his own pages if you lifted the page protection. BTW, how long is the page protection in effect ? ] 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::::::::It's only to be protected until his block expires, of course. I've answered your other question above. Regards, ]</small> (]) 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Article: ]
* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, now I see what you mean, Chairboy. I think I misread/didn't read closely enough the comment of yours which I replied to. (Well, that's what happends when you skim a 7,500 word section in ten minutes!) ] 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
This ban is ''way'' too long, and regardless of the reason blocking his user page is unacceptable. You said that blocks aren't theraputic, they're to prevent further disruption... well isn't blocking his user page "to keep him from stuffing his foot further into his mouth" more theraputic than to prevent disruption? He should be able to say whatever he wants on his own pages. You're talking in circles because such an unreasonable action is undefendable --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
:Hi Froth! I appreciate your comments, but I'll respectfully disagree. We don't get to say "whatever we want" on our user pages. This isn't a blog, it's an encyclopedia. I've been corresponding with Light Current in email, and I've expressed my hope that he can use this opportunity to turn things around. I'm not sure I understand your other point above, as I mentioned before the block is ''not'' intended to be therapeutic. I've protected his page to help him, not punish. I told him in email that I'd rather he be a succesful wikipedia editor who hates my guts 6 months from now than an indefinitely banned editor who likes me. - ]</small> (]) 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Admin plays detective...what next? ==
:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
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)


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
: 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)
, , .


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
::I 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)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
: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)
{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
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)
{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Vandal encounter ==
: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)


] 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.
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)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
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)


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)
A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*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:
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*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 professor 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)
::For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian. On his original user page he claims to be ''a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War'' and claims to be a historian in talk page posts and at mediation but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At ] the first question the talk page receives is from ] to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply. The account blanks other criticism without response including a suspected sockpuppet template and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account ] on 10 May 2006, one month after ] got blanked and redirected to ]. Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it. Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim. If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Misplaced Pages's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from ] (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. ] 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
:::: by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails ], but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! ] (]) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
:::::I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained ''two'' fraudulent citations. His reference to ]'s will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s.
::::::I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.
::::::Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).
::::::The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.
::::::Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.
::::::For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.
::::::Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.
::::::You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. ] 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are and (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.


:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not , either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. ] (]) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.
::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:
:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::*''Henry V's will'' To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of ] but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with ] was not even a very cordial one.(170)
{{abot}}
::*''Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc'' As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)
::To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Misplaced Pages's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in ] while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Misplaced Pages has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Misplaced Pages were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Misplaced Pages's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.
:::Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?
:::You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.
:::You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.
:::With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.
:::Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.
:::You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.
:::You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.
:::You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.
:::You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.
:::You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.
:::A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. ] 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
::::EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.
{{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?
::::Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the ''Digital Medievalist'' is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the ''American Historical Review'' or the , neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' does disclose peer reviewers, but
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
::::A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}}


Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Chris Snidow's is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from . This is self-publishing, which fails ]. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).


:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? ] (]) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::::...sigh... I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of previous allegations without much substance to back them up, but that is seemingly what has happened again. And it's late. I'm hoping my fatigue will excuse any mistakes or apparent irritability.
:::::Akhilleus, you have repeated many of your previous charges against these people without addressing my comments very much. To reduce tedious repetition to a minimum I'll just cover the following topics. You stated that you aren't making allegations of unethical behavior but then proceeded to do precisely that by claiming that this publication violates basic standards of scholarship. The "conflict of interest" allegation and hypothetical analogy given to illustrate it was insufficient for many reasons. Among these would be the fact that the author in this case did not also serve as the editor (as in your analogy) and more significantly you entirely sidestepped the point I had made about JAMA's similar practice of publishing articles in which the author and peer reviewers all belong to the AMA. In other words, if you applied your argument consistently you would need to also dismiss the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most respected publications in any field. Rather than addressing this you instead switched the topic to JAMA's disclosure of peer reviewers, which was not the issue. Worse yet, you alleged that the publication was listing peer reviewers as "co-authors" whereas on the contrary the publication states otherwise by clearly labeling them peer reviewers. If you want me to view this as a good faith discussion then you need to stop doing this. You also need to show that your objections can be applied consistently. Namely, if you're going to reject this publication because the author and peer reviewers are members of the same association then you also need to reject JAMA and many others for doing the same. Do you reject JAMA because their authors and peer reviewers often all belong to the AMA? I think this is probably an important point.
:::::The allegations you have raised against the people are again based on unsupported speculation. You ignored the members I had already noted who clearly do possess more standard credentials or positions. You sidestepped the point I had raised about Chris Snidow's book having been endorsed by someone who apparently is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a respected author and perhaps recognized authority in the field since one of Durova's links to a previous discussion uses one of her books as an apparently authoritative work on the subject (please correct me if I've missed something here). The publishing method for Snidow's book would not appear to be relevant because the book's content and the expert endorsement it received would not be outweighed by this factor or other objections you have raised.
:::::There may well be some problems with this group but this current discussion isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is it directly related to the siteban issue, so I think it's time to move on. ] 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::EReference, I haven't addressed most of your comments because I don't believe they're germane. For instance, it doesn't matter whether Snidow's book has been endorsed by Clin--it's still self-published, it still fails ], and it in no way establishes that Snidow has an advanced degree in history or a position at a college or university. Similarly, nothing you've said about the other members of the Historical Association (Academy) for Joan of Arc Studies (HAJAS) has established that they have advanced degrees in history (or a related field) or positions at a college or university. The only member of the group that has a significant publication on Joan that's widely known among historians, Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have an advanced degree. To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association. They are, rather, enthusiasts and amateurs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, but the publications of such a group don't meet ].
::::::Here's the byline on ''Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing'': "Robert Wirth (editor), Virginia Frohlick (peer review), Margaret Walsh (peer review), Allen Williamson (authorial contribution and translation)". These credits imply collective authorship. Frohlick and Walsh are listed after an editor and before an author/translator; to me, this looks like they're getting equal credit for producing the work with Wirth and Williamson, i.e., they're basically co-authors. If I were to list this work in a bibliography, it would appear as "Wirth, Robert, ed., and Virginia Frohlick, Margaret Walsh, and Allen Williamson. 'Primary Sources...'", etc. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that Frohlick and Walsh were only peer reviewers and not authors, they should be listed in a separate line, or acknowledged in a footnote--most journal articles that I've read recently thank the anonymous referees in the first or last footnote of the article (and in all of those cases the referees remain anonymous, as in ). An additional point that needs to be raised is that since neither Frohlick nor Walsh have formal expertise in this field, there's no indication that they're qualified to perform peer review--we have no way of knowing whether they're familiar with scholarship on Joan of Arc or historical method in general.
::::::What you're saying about the AMA is ridiculous. It's obvious why it's ok for ordinary members of the AMA to author and referee articles that appear in ''JAMA''--they're not directly connected with the editorial board of the journal or the administration of the AMA. In contrast, Walsh is the president of HAJAS, Frohlick is Secretary-Treasurer, and Williamson is "Founding Director". If the president or founding director of the AMA published an article in ''JAMA'' and it was refereed by the secretary-treasurer, I think most people would see a problem. Now imagine if none of them had an M.D., yet the article were about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I think you'd lose some faith in the editorial standards of ''JAMA'' at that point...
::::::Failing to meet the standards of legitimate scholarship isn't necessarily unethical. As Durova stated, most of the members of HAJAS are probably acting in good faith; but since they aren't professional scholars, they're unaware of the standards that should be met. However, if someone is aware of the proper editorial processes in publishing professional work in history, including peer review, and still presents HAJAS is a legitimate academic publisher, then I'd say there's a potential ethical problem. That's just one of the things Editor X is accused of. ] (]) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


== Can you please help? ==
:::::::Ok. Since you won't let this drop I'm going to analyze the latest spate of accusations. If nothing else it should show why other editors really need to check allegations more closely from now on.
] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You again alleged that this organization is not scholarly because its members fail WP:RS. You justified this in part by stating that Stephen Richey's book fails this test because he's an amateur without a university position. This is puzzling since a search of Misplaced Pages finds that this book is cited as a source several times in the main Joan of Arc article and the Joan of Arc Bibliography article. The edit histories of both show that these articles have been repeatedly edited by you yourself. With all due respect, this puzzling pattern begs the question: Did you object to this book before or only after it became apparent that the author was associated with this organization you're trying to discredit? In the first of these articles that book is not only cited but also extensively quoted in the text itself (for example, see this part ]. This fact could hardly have been overlooked since entire passages from the book are included so prominently in the text. Clicking on previous versions from the edit history shows that they've been there a very long time without being removed.
:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The WP:RS standard has nothing to do with the wider issue of scholarly merit since WP:RS is a purely internal regulation which governs WP inclusion but does not necessarily affect someone's legitimacy as a scholar. Snidow's book clearly has merit because it was endorsed by an expert. Richey's book appears to have received good reviews from De Re Militari for example. A scholarly organization can be composed of independent scholars without violating any rule and indeed many of these organizations contain quite a few independent scholars. Misplaced Pages's RS rule would only be germane if you want to remove any of their books from WP articles, in which case Stephen Richey's would appear to be the chief one which would require removal.
::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think your other criticisms are also clearly irrelevant or unfair. In brief: the publication clearly states that the peer reviewers are peer reviewers. Listing them in a single line may be nonstandard but since they are labeled quite clearly to indicate their function your criticism on this point is petty. Your treatment of my AMA analogy was unfair, since your objections (the closeness of one group's members) would essentially boil down to the difference in size between the organizations. You need to assume good faith and remember that we're dealing with a very small and new organization which cannot be expected to have the same degree of distance between members that an old and large organization like the AMA would have. If you look at other small scholarly societies such as the Marie de France Society I suspect you could find the same objections to make. It's a small close-knit group, the founding members still have prominent positions and all the members obviously know each other pretty well since their website includes a jovial tongue-in-cheek group photo of them gathered together. Surely their peer reviewers must belong to the same small group unless there are lots of other Marie de France scholars out there somewhere who could provide meaningful critiques for this very obscure subject. The point I was making with the AMA example was that if the AMA also allows its own members to provide peer review (the procedure which you're complaining about) then the only point of objection comes down to how well the participants know each other. This seems a senseless objection when applied to a very small group which is just starting out.
:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly.
:::::::If your criticisms have merit then you will need to remove the quotations and endnote references to Stephen Richey's book from the Joan of Arc article. I'll leave that up to you. I've been trying to bring this discussion in here to a close because I think it has gone beyond the productive stage and is turning into a classic Usenet debate. But ending it is also up to you since you are the one making public accusations which I've been trying to balance against some analysis. Some balance is clearly needed I think. ] 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sorry, where did I say Richey's book fails ]? Apparently a feature of a "classic Usenet debate" is the failure to read carefully. At any rate, it seems that none of the members of HAJAS have advanced degrees or have a position at a college or university--it's a group of amateur historians. So I can't see how it can be described as a scholarly society, or how its publications can be regarded as reliable sources.
::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
::::::::Regarding the byline: when "'Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" was added to ] by an IP user (presumably Editor X), the author was given as "Robert Wirth et al." (see ). The same credit was given to another work published by HAJAS. So, I'm not the only one who thinks that Wirth, Frohlick, and Walsh are being given credit as co-authors--Editor X does also. Or, perhaps he just doesn't understand how bibliographies should be formatted, in which case I hope he's not doing any copyediting at HAJAS.
::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Last (and least important): why do you assume that the peer reviewers of HAJAS must be members of HAJAS? Is it because no one else would pay attention to their work? Perhaps a quote from ] is in order: "Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise." HAJAS would be on better ground if it recruited peer reviewers who aren't members of the organization, and who are recognized experts--for instance, professors in history departments! This is the practice of most academic journals--they find referees who are experts in the subject that aren't members of the editorial board. ] (]) 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You have said that these people lack degrees or university positions. A bit of digging would find that Margaret Walsh is/was a university professor. If I had time I could check others.
::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::In your last post you denied having ever said that Stephen Richey's book fails WP:RS. In your post the day before that one, at 23:49 on 10 December 2006 you said the following: "Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. ....To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association... the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS."
:::::::::You quite clearly have said that Richey does not have the right credentials, by which I assume you would mean his book fails the standard you've been applying.
:::::::::The rest of your comments probably require only brief observations. The method chosen by an anon at WP to list one of the group's books does not change the fact that this book quite clearly and explicitly does identify the peer reviewers as peer reviewers. Finally, I already cited examples of two other journals which also evidently use peer reviewers who belong to the same organization. Yet you do not criticize or dismiss these two for that practice.
:::::::::I will ask again that you please allow this increasingly pointless discussion to finally drop. We both could be doing better things with our time. ] 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*That's pretty ''frickin''' impressive, Durova. I definitely support both a community ban and your actions here. Good job. Let's take this misinformationist down once and for all. <font color="#000000">&spades;]</font><font color="#FF00FF">]</font><font color="#000000">]&spades;</font> 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Durova did a lot of hard work, but my analysis has indicated that much of it was probably honest misinterpretation or was in various degrees unsupportable, as happens with all of us in this type of endeavor. She should certainly be commended for her anti-vandalism efforts though. ] 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


== POVPushingTheTruth ==
== further out of wikipedia contact ==
{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
{{abot}}


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
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)


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.
:: 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)


'''Key Points:'''
::: 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)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
*This is a very interesting case. May I ask how often you are getting these emails? In your previous post you said 3 in a month, which doesn't sound like much. Also consider that the offender might not even be aware of what he's doing: sometimes social-network sites have people upload the address book from their email client, which can include everyone they've ever sent mail to. You might be one of hundreds or even thousands, who knows. It's also (sadly) possible that the user may have been the victim of a virus or trojan which harvested your address and is now being used for spam. Obviously it's upsetting you if you're posting here about it, so I'm trying to think of a good solution. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
# '''Impact on the Community:'''
#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.


'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
I got another one today, this one asks me for my birthday. The one yesterday asked me for my address. I've gotten 5 in the past month or so. And no, he's not been infected with a trojan because he's adding in a personalized message "Hello this is mohammed salim khan from dherai swat, pakistan", which fits in with he user pages. Morwen: I think it is a wikipedia problem, because he is using the email function on wikipedia to gain my response and then using it for unwanted personal contact. That's a huge potential loophole for phishers/scammers, to email editors here with a seemingly valid question, and then use the responding addresses and spam them. ] ] ] ] ] 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
:Look, he's already got your email address, right? So if we ban him, and stop him from using the email facility, and indeed remove your email from the site, then he's still got your email address and can continue to spam you? I don't mean to seem unsympathetic here, but what sort of action do you expect us to take? If I am misunderstanding the situation, and you never replied to one, he ''doesn't'' have your address and is still sending these things through the wikipedia's "e-mail" function, then we may be able to do something. ] - ] 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
I don't know exactly what action you're supposed to take. That's why I brought it up here, to get some sort of ideas. I can eventually get the spam filters to recognize his name and they'll block it out, but what's to stop him from doing it again through a different account? It's a policy issue that needs to be addressed because it's a potentially dangerous loophole. So I'm bringing it up here, because it's an incident, and it's something that requires administrator attention. ] ] ] ] ] 23:54, 6 December 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.
:Do you want us to warn someone, block someone, delete something or protect something? If so, this is the right place for it. If not, then it needs to go to developers or possibly the community at large for discussion on what we want to ask the developers to do. ] - ] 01:44, 7 December 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)


== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
Morwen, I'm here because I don't know what the policy is regarding out of wikipedia harrassment. I think that an official warning at the minimum is in order, though it's up to the administrators which user it would go to, because he has something like 8 user accounts (which I've posted about here before). If there's a way to disable the Special:emailuser function for his accounts, that's actually the best way. However, I'm asking here what the policy is. This is an incident. It requires administrator attention. Hence, here. (Note, I think it should go to the developers as well, but that doesn't preclude action here). ] ] ] ] ] 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Hello,
:I think SWATJester has a valid point here; if people are phishing via Misplaced Pages email, in any form, then we have a problem. Just because we don't have a policy yet doesn't mean that we should pretend that it's not a problem if it happens. I don't know what the right answer is; it could range from "be careful who you respond to WP email from" as a user warning, to blocking or banning any WP account found to be doing this, with quite a range in between. But it's worth starting a policy discussion about. This is probably not the right place, but figuring out where the right place is, and asking if there's an informal consensus for doing something on a preliminary basis, are reasonable here. ] 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns:
::Could there be a way to change the e-mail function to hide people's e-mail addresses from one another? So I e-mail you, you can't see my e-mail address but you can click the e-mail link from my userpage to reply? This might be an issue for the Village Pump. ]]] 10:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':
==User: BooyakaDell, sock of user:JB196?==


Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
] 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)


'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
:Completely agree with this, and thanks for adding the incident, Fozzie! If my view is worth anything, I believe that this is definitely ]. For those who are interested, I put a note about this in ] (I think that's the right acronym!) as well under section 4 (registered users). ] 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
Please see my comments on my talk page (am Adopter of BooyakaDell - ]) - ]. For the record I don't think that dealing with the Sockpuppet case is the way to go - as a Checkuser has proved not workable - see ]. Cheers ] 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
:I must note that BooyakaDell signs posts the same way as JB196 did, with no space between the full stop and the signature (i.e. This.&ndash;&ndash; ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) which along with the MO seems to be more evidence of sockpuppetry. &ndash;&ndash; ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.]
::The evidence is growing. Thanks for that observation, lid. I consider the checkuser situation to be irrelevant. If BooyakaDell is behaving in the same way as JB196, he should be treated the same way - sockpuppet or otherwise. ] 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


'''Evidence''':
:::After having his claims of non-notability soundly dismissed on ] and ], BooyayaDell has start adding as many other tags as possible, in the same way JB196 used to do ] 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


::::And it's off to the Mediation Cabal as Booyaka/JB continues to rampage across articles. Not sure why he hasn't been blocked, he's getting obvious now. 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


:::::See Cabal debate at ] an Admin's opinion there would I think be helpful. ] 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


::::::Since things quickly devolved on the Mediation Cabal request, Lethaniol asked that a RfC be started to deal with the edit war that's sprung up (tempers are pretty hot), but I would think that would be seperate from any possible ] issue. The RfC is at ]


]
== ] ==
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:Debate top-->


The block has been reviewed by two uninvolved sysops and upheld. The rest of this appears to be commons drama from a user who was indefinitely blocked there. Please take that somewhere else. Cheers, ] ] 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


'''Request for Administrative Action''':
* {{User|Moby_Dick}}
* ] (])
* ]
* ]


1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
I'd like to have a second opinion on this. Is the a violation of the arbcom remedies (also mind the clarification)? This was his first edit since November 13 2006.


2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
On November 12-13 he was same time active on commons and he wasn't uploading images. Instead his focus seemed to be me. Aside from that he wasn't active at all since august neither here on en.wiki or on commons.wiki.


3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
--<small>] ]</small> 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Well? --<small>] ]</small> 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
::I'm not sure if this would constitute "harassing or stalking" you unless he continues with more posts. One post of "makes for interesting reading!" doesn't seem to be either harrassment or stalking. Anyone else want to comment? ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
:::Your comment would be right to any new/old user without the arbcom remedies Moby has. Besides that was his first edit for roughly a month. He is stalking me unless he had accidentally stumbled on my talk page. --<small>] ]</small> 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
----Best Regards


--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::He might also, reasonably, have read . His comment is right below your link (which included his name). How is it "stalking" to respond to a post naming him? Particularly since, as you say, "that was his first edit for roughly a month"? <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:50, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
{{Abot}}


== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
:::::Still advocating moby dick huh? Have a read of ] essay. You have been blocked for this behavior on commons '''indefinitely''' for it .
{{atop
:::::--<small>] ]</small> 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
| result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}
::::::Pointing out the above omitted possibility is "advocacy"? And such "advocacy" is a blockable offense? According to , the block is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others," but , only announced that this repeated question is being , so the false and defamatory charge has been left up going on three weeks now, with no right of rebuttal. How strange. Yet two of the people endorsing this action are ; what a lovely prospect for dispute resolutions all over the Wikis. And to think this current furore started with you , then trying to for . <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''18:56, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>


Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page. Theoraticaly it is possible of course. He could be watching my talk page as well. These are all plasuable ways to 'stalk' a person. Regardless, its something he is prohibited from doing. He is merely tricking the system as he had been doing for months (nearly two years if you count Davenbelle).
{{abot}}
:::::--<small>] ]</small> 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
::::::''"What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page" ?'' It seems like a reasonable precaution for someone who's seen new accusations made against him in an attempt to block him (for complaining when his user page was repeatedly blanked, as noted and linked above). <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''22:41, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
::Well if you guys are so in love with moby dicks contribution, I am out of here. --<small>] ]</small> 09:54, 7 December 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.
:::I don't think users are in love w/ MD. They've just given their views after checking the edits. MD's edit on your talk page is a comment to your ]. Just forget about the issue unless he deliberately harrass you. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
::::He has a record of deliberately harassing me. That is his entire contribution with the exception of very few minor edits. That very link explains the arbitration hearing. He is practically taunting me... I can ''legally'' link to any arbitration hearing of my choice at my convinance. Check both his commons and en.wiki contribution and you will see a preoccupation with me.
::::Let me ask this in a different way, if you were under the remedies moby dick is under, would you be doing what moby is doing?
::::--<small>] ]</small> 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
:::::He surely has a record and the ] was a result of that same record. However, his edit on your talk page is not a ''de facto'' harrassement. He's just commented on something related to his case. You were discussing the ] issue and made and you made an analogy between what was happening in the article and MD's case. Note that MD hasn't been involved neither in the article nor in the . So the question is why did you have to refer to his case while discussing another issue. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The person I was talking to (hustnoc) was feeling harassed so I asked him to review my past arbcom case about harassment so he can compare his and that case. Obviously he isn't 'stalked' if you compare it to my case... Discussion was not even about moby dick and his nick is only visible if someone looks at the source. --<small>] ]</small> 20:42, 7 December 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.
:::::::So his simply looking at your talk page wouldn't give away that you were discussing his case. So much for the idea that he was stalking you. But either <small>''(here restricted to user-talk-space to shorten the list)''</small> or looking at the would show him that page. You've just cleared him. Thanks. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''22:28, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
: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 (Kriji Sehamati,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)


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
=== Unilateral action by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique ===
{{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)}}
:Now, without saying a word , ] has citing as "harrassment of Cool Cat":
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:#the above cited remark (but note the above consensus, Moby was responding to his own name being brought up); and
----
:#Moby's participation in ] &ndash; endorsing the summary of ] &ndash; Moby's ]... (Bastique does '''''not''''' cite Moby's ] of ]'s summary, or Moby's ] of ]'s summary); and
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.
:#Moby's supportive post to ], who was being accused by Cool Cat.


'']'' 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.
:Note that where Bastique ], he did not even bother to sign it, ] had to an hour later.


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
:This is the same Bastique who nominated Cool Cat for Commons admin , and has since then defended him from repeated complaints of admin abuse &ndash; CC restoring his own postings deleted for policy violations, or CC and even protecting his target's user page &ndash; as merely "errors of judgment" ... while cautioning or even threatening to block those who bring up these complaints , so complaining of admin abuse is clearly a much more severe offense than the admin abuse itself.
: ''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'':
:This is the same Bastique &ndash; the same paragon of fairness, of impartiality, of avoiding any conflict of interest, of recusing himself as admin from disputes in which he has personal loyalties &ndash; who is now a .
{{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''.
:Think what we all have to look forward to, in Wiki-wide standards of dispute resolution. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''07:31, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>


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.()
::You know... Trolling me is one thing, people hate me anyways... But trolling Bastique... --<small>] ]</small> 07:40, 9 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;...}}
:::I am shocked at how Commons admins behave. Bastique, what the hell? People with valid concerns about Cool Cat are being blocked out of Commons, and can't do anything about it now. This.. is wrong. -- ] 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


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''
::::Two trolls! Oh, that is twice the fun! --<small>] ]</small> 08:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
::::Ned, you trolled Cool Cat on Commons, and you weren't blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
:::::Look, whatever beefs yall have with the Commons, take it there or privately, not hash it out in here where most admins have little to no control at what happens at the Commons. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
::::::Perhaps you've missed the detail that the same cluster of Commons admins who've shown such mutual support and solidarity ''there'' are now doing so ''here on Misplaced Pages'', such as one summarily blocking another's critic (without a hearing or opportunity for defense), rather than properly recusing himself from admin actions in disputes where his personal loyalties are involved. That's unbefitting conduct. It's admin abuse.


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 ]''
::::::Besides, how can anyone "take it to Commons" if they're blocked there (on false accusations, without a hearing or opportunity for defense) and their protests in talkspace are simply ignored? ] <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>


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 .
:::::::How many images have you uploaded to commons? What has your entire contribution been? Well? --<small>] ]</small> 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


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)
:Note also that Bastique has to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list &ndash; in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. So another effect of his blocking Moby was to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
: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===
::FYI, Moby Dick had been blocked per an arbcom ruling, which Bastique reported at the right place. ] 18:23, 9 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. ]]
:::I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "" &ndash; but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "]" ''on Misplaced Pages'' over the complaint ''on Commons'' that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.
{{abot}}


== Extremely Annoying situation ==
:::No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in ], or to block Moby. ''Bastique'' declared them such elsewhere, in a ]. And Bastique is '''''not''''' a neutral admin. His alliance ''on Commons'' with Cool Cat shows that.
{{atop
| result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it.
:::It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope you agree with that much.


The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
:::If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it '''''wasn't''''' harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page &ndash; and if ''that'' constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''09:48, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>


]
::::I find your attitude most interesting. I do not believe Bastique is loyal to me. No one is my ] here. --<small>] ]</small> 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


] ]
:::*I don't know the history here, but SAJordan has some points here that concern me. I really find it a stretch to classify Moby's actions as harassment. I'm also concerned that Bastique is not completely impartial regarding Cool Cat and it would be better to have the claim of harassment evaluated by another admin. I am tempted to reduce the block period as blocking for a week for ''those edits'' following ''five months'' of apprarently problem-free behavior is an overreaction. In fact, I don't see any behavior here warranting a block at all. However, as I'm unfamiliar with all the details of this case I have not modified the block, but I do find Bastique's block concerning. If any other admins are familiar with the arbitration case involving Cool Cat and Mody Dick I would appreciate additional perspective on Bastique's block. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
:::::If you want perspective... Think of a person contesting all your actions on every vote you participate and every article you edit. Practically everything you do this person follows you around. Thats what Moby dick did to me (as per arbcom hearing). Thats why arbcom (redundently since its prohibited behaviour anyways) prohibited him from stalking (harrasing) me. He was told explicity to avoid running into me on votes at a later clarification. Now after a long break he returned to his routine. This non-contributor should have been indef blocked long ago for disruption.
:::::Bastique made a sensible decision and blocked him. Bastique is not my pet ] and it is extremely disrespectful for people to argue that he is. I do not understand why people are taking SAJordan's comments seriously.
:::::--<small>] ]</small> 11:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


::::::OK, thank you. I would still like some perspective from an impartial party. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== IP vandalism ==
:::::::I don't think I qualify as impartial, but I am able to answer Cool Cat's question as to why people are listening to SA Jordan. He has not nominated ] for deletion. You have, in clear violation of just about every rule in the book and some that aren't. Your block log does not exactly endear trust, either. ] 12:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


This user: ] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
::::::::He is still a toll and have been blocked indefinitely from commons for it. I know that makes him an archangel in comparation since we value trolls above anything else on wikipedia. --<small>] ]</small> 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh for heaven's sake, please read ] and ]; also ]. You are in no position to call anyone a troll. ] 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
::::::::::Sure I am. I have already done so. Moby Dick is indeed a troll. I welcome anyone to contest this. SAJordan is also a troll. I also welcome anyone to contest it.
::::::::::I do not believe you are in any reason to be here. Why is the deletion cabal complaining about me nominating something for deletion?
::::::::::--<small>] ]</small> 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


::::::Can both of you please mind ] (especially as it has not yet been deleted), and avoid the ] remarks. My concerns raised by SAJordan's comments have to do with the content of his comments, not with who is making them. Please try to keep this discussion focused on the issues. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:30, 10 December 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)
:::::::I appreciate that, Doug. But if you ever do feel curious about what Cool Cat considers "trolling", please feel free to check out my , all of 12 edits over 1¼ days, two of those edits being my user and talk pages, the rest being . ] (moved from RfA main page) is the link I followed to get there, posted by Cool Cat ''on Misplaced Pages'' to charge harassment when he was accused of admin abuse ''on Commons''; and you'll see my comments there too. is the announcement of my indef-blocking "For making threats against Cool Cat and others" &mdash; what, you didn't see any threats in what I wrote? Neither did I. ] is where I kept asking "''What threats?''" and could never get a straight answer. Happy reading, if you ever get around to it... and I'd enjoy learning your opinion. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''20:56, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Frankly, SAJordan's actions should be considered trolling. He is persistently entering the same four or five links, over, and over and over again, just in case you missed it the first six or seven times. Please read ] for my opinion about that. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:04, 10 December 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)
::::::::Also, I left a remark on SAJordan's talk page, to which he had not responded. I only just became aware of this thread, brimming full with accusations and innuendo by SAJordan today.
::::::::He likes to link only to the diffs that matter. Try moving forward or backward in history on each of those diffs. You'll find quite a broader picture of events.
::::::::I stand by my block of Moby Dick. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 10 December 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)
:::::::::''"I left a remark on SAJordan's talk page, to which he had not responded."'' Actually, Bastique's ] threatens me with blocking if I '''''do''''' respond there. Recall that he blocked Moby for "trolling" and "harassment" for ''responding on a talk page'' where someone had mentioned his name. If I ''respond on a talk page'' to Bastique now, that would be committing the identical offense, "trolling" him, which he has '''''ordered''''' me not to do. But who knows what else may also qualify, so I might not be able to post after this.
: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 ==
:::::::::''"I only just became aware of this thread ''<small></small>'' today."'' Yet I posted ] to Bastique's talk page over 1½ days ago, including (note the link): "and, not to blindside you, also discussed more publicly but in similar detail ], in case you want to address the issue as publicly." Bastique responded (with a refusal) on my talk page just a few hours later the same day, but didn't see that post on his talk page until today?


:::::::::''"He likes to link only to the diffs that matter."'' That's a nice compliment. I don't quite see how it applies to my preceding remark <small></small>, since the links there are not to diffs, only my full Commons contrib history (12 edits) and several page sections. But feel free to check the full page histories too, diff by diff if you like... though if any specific diffs "mattered" or were needed for a "broader picture", I'm sure Bastique would have cited them already. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''01:06, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>


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)
]'s first contribution in weeks was to post a snide comment on the talk page of a user which he had been prohibited from stalking or harassing. This was not some ordinary intersection of contributions that might have happened to accidentally bring him to ]'s talk page, after which User:Moby Dick might have posted some spiteful comment, which nevertheless would itself have been problematic; instead, User:Moby Dick's first stop on Misplaced Pages after coming back was to visit User:Cool Cat's talk page and comment on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia. I do not know what is happening on Commons, but on the English Misplaced Pages User:Moby Dick was not acting in accordance with ] and may have been going so far as to flout it. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the other two ] comments, and , this is in direct violation of the Arbcom ruling, and is in contempt of it. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
:''"Moby Dick's first contribution in weeks was to post a snide comment"''... namely, "makes for interesting reading!", in response to the posting of a link in which his name appears. Someone assuming good faith would take that as endorsing the link. You take it as snide.
: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.
:...''"on the talk page of a user which he had been prohibited from stalking or harassing."'' The user was the one who'd posted the link there. Look up in ], where the issue was openly discussed and the consensus was that it was legitimate, not harassment, to respond where his name was mentioned. Even Bastique, who blocked him for it, ]: ...''"it would be best not to '''attract''' people trolling you by not mentioning in your edits. My case for blocking him, although justifiable, remains arguable"''.... (emphasis added)
: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.
:''"This was not some ordinary intersection of contributions that might have happened to accidentally bring him to ]'s talk page"''.... As discussed above, Moby Dick could have found that link by checking what linked to his arbitration case, a reasonable precaution for someone who keeps getting accused by Cool Cat of horrible offenses like ].
: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)
:...''"and comment on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia."'' That "matter" was posted by Cool Cat and included Moby Dick's name. If commenting "on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia" is an offense, is it not obvious that Cool Cat '''''initiated''''' that matter? And that his bringing up Moby Dick's name '''''attracted''''' (using Bastique's word) or '''''invited''''' response from the person named? If I said things about '''''you''''' on my talk page, totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia, how would it be wrong on '''''your''''' part to respond?
:::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)
:''"Actually, looking at the other two ] comments, and , this is in direct violation of the Arbcom ruling, and is in contempt of it."'' So it's '''''wrong''''' to post links to RfAs and RfARs, public documents on the record, relevant to the discussion then ongoing? Then why wasn't it '''''wrong''''' of Cool Cat to post that link to Moby Dick's RfAr? Or if it was '''''okay''''' for Cool Cat to do that about Moby Dick, why was the converse not '''''okay'''''? Is there a double standard at work here? Why is it that Cool Cat faces no penalty for all his harassment of Moby Dick? <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''01:06, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
:::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)
::The block has been done, and, for the record, if Bastique had not gotten to it before I did, I would have blocked ] myself. At the moment your extreme interest in punishing Cool Cat, SAJordan, constitutes ] as well, so at this time it would be best to just go back to editing the encyclopedia as these replies to this ANI post are honestly getting nowhere. If you would like to address Cool Cat's behavior, file a ] instead. Thank you. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:10, 11 December 2006 (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)

:::''"Extreme interest in punishing"''? But I '''''don't''''' think it's wrong to link to public documents on the record, relevant to the discussion then ongoing. Neither Bastique nor I think it was a punishable offense for ''Cool Cat'' to do that; but Bastique blocked ''Moby Dick'' for it. Bastique waved away Cool Cat's ''seven edits in four days'' (including blanking and protection) of Moby Dick's user page as an "error of judgment", but declared that Moby's making even a ''single'' non-vandalizing edit on Cool Cat's talk page (in response to mention of his own name) is a "blockable offense". Bastique has not penalized Cool Cat for carrying complaints back and forth between Commons and Misplaced Pages, but if Moby or I refer to Cool Cat's history, even on the same project, that's "trolling" and blockable. So the question isn't so much about Bastique's (let alone my) "extreme interest in punishing" '''''behavior''''', it's about why there's such a discrepancy in how the '''''same''''' behavior is treated, depending on '''''who''''' exhibits it. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''02:23, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>

::::You are now acting like a victim. You have persistently '''distorted the facts to create a scenario''' in which you have become a victim. You are obsessed with seeing Cool Cat punished. You have made a great effort to elicit some sort of reaction from him and now myself. You are indeed trolling, and you are exhausting the community's patience with you. This is literally trolling. You have been told now by myself and now other admins to stop engaging in this trolling behavior. You had best heed the warnings. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Do you think ] were "trolling", by the same definition? <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''03:14, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>

I have no reason to be on SAJordan's side, and I'm not even sure who exactly he is, but I'm finding this whole thing rather disturbing. I agree that this isn't the place to complain, but at the same time it does involve administrators ''here'' on en.wiki since Bastique is doing things that I would think are.. bad decisions. I had left comments about Cool Cat on commons that was completely unrelated to SAJordan, and Bastique ''deleted'' the talk page containing my comment. I've got nothing to do with SAJordan, and I don't really care about this Moby guy, but am I the only one who thinks somethings not right here? Where does one go, at this point? How does one handle a cross-project issue such as this? Like I said, I'll be glad to take this conversation somewhere else, but I'm really not sure ''where'' that would be. Any thoughts or advice? -- ] 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::(Ned, are you referring to ? An entire RfA talk page deleted by Bastique for ''"obvious trolling "''? What a flexible definition of "trolling". <small></small> <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''16:27, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>)

*Ned, I'm in sort of the same boat as you in that I don't know SAJordan, Cool Cat, Mody Dick, or Bastique, but I sure have the uneasy feeling that something doesn't add up here—that's why I initially responded in this thread. I can't say that the subsequent conversion has done anything to alleviate my concerns. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:I support the comments of Doug and Ned. I am completely outside the issue, and only noticed here because I am watching this page for an unrelated matter. I am also troubled by Bastique's conflict of interest in this matter, and what I perceive as threats to SAJordan. I would also add that as a member of the community, Bastique doesn't speak for me when he says Jordan is "trying the patience of the community". I would like to see this issue resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, which would include SAJordan and MobyDick. ] 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above discussion, but if lightening the mood is needed, wouldn't it be appropriate to resurrect ] or ] and get him to <s>harpoon</s>, um, file an arbitration case against, ]? :-) Or should that be the other way around...? ] 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC) <small>(hoping there is no ] or ])</small>

Given that SAJordan's post at the top of this section amounts to a scurrilous smear-job (right up the old canard about unilateral action--what, exactly, is a bilateral administrative action?), I'm surprised the discussion has wound on so long. I would've blocked under the circumstances as well, for much the same reasons as Bastique did. Moby Dick doesn't get the same considerations as other users because he's under Arbcom sanction for exactly this kind of behaviour. The discussion was not related to Moby Dick, as some claim; rather, Coolcat was citing the previous arbitration case as an example of people following him around. The specific context was Star Trek deletions. In no way does this involve Moby Dick. Dropping in like that to make a frivolous remark is harassment and proof that he's watching Coolcat's talk page. The Arbitration Committee, with reason, forbade this kind of behaviour. Moby Dick is right though, that case ''does'' make interesting reading, if one makes the time. ] ] 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:Debate bottom --></div>

== ] ==

I really don't know where to begin on this one, but I just want to keep in mind that this conflict is nowhere new, yet it has for a while remained dormant...until today. Anyway in the past there has been many incidents when this user, has repeatedly stalked on my edits and in some cases it came to pure trolling... like these three edits on ] , , , , before the article was . On demand I can provide at least thirty examples where he stalked on my edits like that, and as this one shows, he did it (and at times continues to) by using a dynamic IP to avoid blockage...it really reached its peak moment on ] this example is a showcase of just how ridiculous this user can be. Originally it was about getting rid of a title that was inputed by a user who was not aware of wiki policies and functions. I moved it back to the translit version Maladzechna . Like any stalker would do so, he went straight at it and . That begun a four month dispute where I went on all possible attempts, including ] that was (and now is) to be a guideline for article titles...And I got the most stubborn resistance one has ever seen (]). Even after you had ], and when it eventually came to a point where no one would challenge on which title the article should rest, he went on ] resisting the change... In the end we did move the page...and the word Maladzechna became Malad'''y'''echna... That's right four months of his stubborn resistance just to add a y... Does one laugh or cry about this?

Now then October/November he is absent on wikipedia. But, recentely he has returned, and really I just do not like knowing that every single edit of mine, particulary on sensitive articles is bound to get reverted by him w/o any consensus or discussion... Really its annoyance more than anything... However there is a ] policy which clearly dictates that such behaivour is unacceptable, regardless of what form my edits happen to be. So I decided let it be sooner than later, and managed to set a trap for him. If one can go to my contribs , then all edits between 14:36, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006 were made deliberately to check his response...and what do you know? Check contributions for him between 19:04, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006... all reverts. Oddly enough, I did actually have an excuse for the page moves which I put on his talk page ], and reverted him again, just to put one final test... And as I am submitting this , same articles. Was it right or wrong for me to test him, you judge, even I get blocked for this, might be slightly extreme, but I won't challege it provided that I have the assurance that upon returning KPbIC will not be stalking me... --] 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:At some point ] wrote: ''"You once accused me of Russification, well on one side you are correct"'' . This is the core of the conflict. ] is a Russian user who devotes significant amount of his activity on ] of ] history (as well as the other territories, which were taken by Russian Empire). The user recently moved 4 articles on ] stations from Ukrainian spelling to Russian spelling. A part of the problem is that the metro stations do not really have a well established English name. But it should be noted that the people of Ukraine have chosen to have the only official language (as stated in ]), which is ], not Russian. The Ukrainian independence, laws, and traditions of Ukraine are recognized by the civilized world, which commonly uses the local names in case establish English names are absent.

:Back to ] alleged accusations, I explained to ] that his identity is of absolutely no interest to me. My interest is primary limited to the Ukrainian topics, the topics of my country. If there are drastic Russification attempts, such as ] often used to commit, then it’s my understanding that it should be prevented. Kuban’s attempts are on the edge of vandalism, as basically he’s challenging the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

:The bigger issue is the relation of a majority and a minority. There are more Russian editors than Ukrainians. While ] is postulated as one of the key elements of Misplaced Pages, often it’s difficult to achieve. With respect to the Ukrainian topics, instead of bothering with analyzing references, looking for information sources, some use brutal force to substitute NPOV by Russian POV. The rest of Wikicommunity very often does not care. Frustrated with the situation, many new Ukrainian editors simply leave, which only amplifies the prevalence of Russian POV. In the end, instead of being a source of reliable information, Misplaced Pages may fail into the hands of such majority groups. This is the challenge that Misplaced Pages is facing. --] 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Standard argument, that is half full of lies... anyway talking about NPOVs and integrities then I invite anyone to take a look on my contributions for the period that KPbIC was absent October and November... I knew he was gone, so had I wanted to choose to troll and ''russify'' articles, would I not take advantage of not having a stalker? Please if anyone finds anything in my contributions of that time then his argument might stand...however so far there is really is nothing for him to bite into... which immediately discredits every comment about ''russification'' which I must say is an extremely abstarct term, and in some cases is actually offensive if '''all''' my actions (according to him) are Russification. So that means, hypotherically every article I edit that is related to Ukraine is Russification...
:::As for Kharkiv Metro stations, then I agree with Alex Bakharev and actually with the moves... and as explained above it was but a simple provocation, to test whether KPbIC has grown up since his departure in October...I even told him on his talk page that should he raise the issue on ] without first reverting, as a proof to me, then I would support him. One needs not be an expert to deduce that he has not.
:::Just to be clear, if there is a dispute on articles, I, unlike KPbIC prefer not to edit war if the people approach with necessary comments on a talk page... There is a ] which I strive to follow... yet some people, like him do not.
:::Finally, ] clearly states that insulted national conscience (his second argument) is no reason to harass other users by stalking on their edits... and the same goes with the ''integrity and NPOV'' arguments that he brought up... And just for the record, there are plenty of Ukrainian users contributing, yet so far only one seems to be harassing a Russian user by stalking his edits and then doing a big-bully accusation. I wonder why noone of the "Russian majority" is not extending him such a favour...And that is not because only 10% of his other edits are useful, i.e. as opposed to the 90% of them being reverts of mine. --] 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Here is a recent example ], a very charged topic, there was a very lengthy discussion on whether or not to include a controversial category. Even KPbIC participated, in the talk page and the dominating consensus was not to include it as genocide. However new users are often oblivious to this and sometimes this POV-pushing takes place . However, per all consensus on talk pages when thousands of people revert this its ok for KPbIC, when I do it , its obviously not .
:::Like I said, I was patient for a long time, but its wearing thin, and frankly at times like these I ask that an admin takes serious action. Not just for the edits over the last two days, but for everything in the past. --] 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


::There are two issues here. One is the move war over the names for the ] stations. I think ] and ] are right here. ] and Kuban kazak wrote nice articles about these stations but the name should be based on the rules of Ukrainian language not on a strange Russian/Ukrainian mix. I have moveprotected the articles in the Ukrainian version. If Kazak or somebody else wants to move them back he can file ] but I doubt it would succeed.

::The second issue is that I agree that KPbIC (when he is onwiki) appears to stalk Kuban kazak and ]. E.g. I strongly suspect that even in this case he became involved into the move war of Kuban kazak vs Olexandr Kravchuk not because he had the Kharkiv metros stations on his watchlist but because he monitors all Kazak's edits. This is a recurring pattern and in the most cases (unlike the Kharkiv Metro names) it leads only to a petty harassment of Kazak without any benefit to the project. I have my own history of conflicts with KPbIC, so I might be biased in my assessment of the situation but I ask an uninvolved admin to look into the stalking allegations. ] 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues here have to be separated. As far as moves where concerned, those where indeed not "unexplained" as KK claimed when reverting them, but simply "unproposed". Unproposed, at least informally at talk, moves are generally a bad idea, but should not be automatically reverted. Those moves were sensible. As the articles are now at those sensible locations, the issue is moot.

The core of KK's complaint is that KPbIC habitually stalks his edits and reverts, picks fights and edit wars in various articles. I can ascertain that this is true. The editor indeed stalks KK (and myself) and while I find being stalked amusing and even thrilling to be that editor's obsession, I can see that Kazak has no obligation to take the stalker with a similar humor and can be, as such, annoyed by him. Stalking is really an issue here. KPbIC' response is basically off-topic. He has grievances about Misplaced Pages's systemic bias, he has his eternal grievances against "the Russians" in general, he invokes some unrelated issues in Ukrainian politics, etc. This all does not belong to WP:ANI.

Kuban kazak complains that he is being stalked for many months by user:KPbIC. I can certify that this is true. The only issue here is whether the KPbIC' habit in question falls under Harassment ("following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" , "stalking another editor who is acting in good faith" and "constantly nit-picking in violation of required courtesy") or it is a legitimate activity of correcting the problem editor. In my opinion KK is not a problem editor but a committed contributor (not without the fault like all of us) and KPbIC' activity qualifies as Harassment. I can tell because I am also an object of KPbIC stalking. I simply take it with pity rather than with anger. --] 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
: *sigh* Stalking is a big deal. To answer Kuban's original question, and I do think Alex's and Irpen's agreement that it is stalking is convincing (and therefore worrying), this noticeboard probably won't solve this kind of problem. Your best chance would be to file an ] and go to arbitration if the behavior doesn't change, or perhaps even make an ] immediately. Arbcom has banned people for stalking , but, based upon severity and the offender's productivity, it has also devised useful remedies for preventing harassment . Either would be useful. ]·] 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::They say there are two separate issues. Wrong. The Russification is the primary and the leading issue; the other issues are secondary.

::All the conflicts I had with ] were caused by his attempts of Russification. On ] he was pushing for the Russian language map. He did the same on ]. He attempted to impose the Russian spelling for ]. Exactly as he moved the 4 articles on ] to the Russian spelling.

::I'm primary interested in contributing on the topics of my country, Ukraine. I check the Ukrainian new article announcement portal, Ukrainian projects on subdivisions and language, and I do check contributions of users that are know of being involved in Ukrainian topics, and Kuban kazak is among them. Nonetheless, I decline the alleged accusations of me wikistalking Kuban kazak. I'm not following him from article to article. Kuban kazak had conflicts and problems on other issues (like on ]), which I don't care of. Having no significant interest in Russia, I'm not getting involved in his other conflicts. I'm not supporting his opponents based on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. But when Kuban kazak comes to Ukrainian articles being in Russification mood, here I get involved. I did found out that Kuban kazak moved 4 articles (not 3 or 5) by checking his contributions. But this is the common approach to respond to vandalism issues. When I notice, someone vandalized a page, I fix it, and I check vandal’s contributions to find out whether the other articles were vandalized. As a vandal probably getting pleasure out of vandalizing the wikipedia, possibly Kuban kazak is pleased by his Russification attempts. When disagreement is expressed with his attempts, he may be under negative emotion. Yet, there is no valid reason to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s his attempts to Russificate the articles of the neighbors of Russia, predominantly Ukraine that when discovered, may cause his dissatisfaction. It’s not the other way around. What should I do, keep my eyes closed when someone is damaging the articles, compromizing the neutrality of them? My advice to Kuban would be to leave the Russification spirit out, and I’m always open to cooperate on improving the encyclopedia.

::], what worries me is that you found Alex's and Irpen's agreement convincing, and this is in the situation when yet the other "members" of "Russian mob" like ] or ] did not show up. What I'm kindly asking for is an independent review of the conflict. --] 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That reply above does not really need a comment. It supports the point about the user's attitude well enough. But I will comment on the previous proposal, especially since Kuban kazak asked me to. I know that Krys makes occasional useful contribtuions and find his stalking of myself really just a rather minor neucsance. I got used to being stalked from time to time and mostly ignore it unless the stalkers' actions go beyond bugging me but causes a major damage to encyclopedia and is a large scale harassment, like in some cases ] () or ] (, ). So, I am not annoyed enough by this to undertake the time comsuming arbitration. As per this, I would advice Kuban kazak neither for or against taking this to ArbCom at this stage. --] 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== ]-related sockpuppetry ==

I stumbled across this (really, I was running a check on a completely different user, so it was an odd occurence) case of major sockpuppetry related to the ongoing edit war at ]. I can say with a high level of certainty based on the IP evidence that {{user|Pkulkarni}}, {{user|Shrilankabuddhist}}, {{user|Buddhistindian}}, {{user|Ambedkaritebuddhist}}, {{user|Dhammafriend}}, {{user|HKelkar2}}, {{user|Iqbal123}}, {{user|Bhangi brahmin}}, and {{user|Kelkar123}} are one person. Note the two impostor accounts. This is potentially a workplace IP, so meatpuppetry is a possibility, but based on the nature of the editing, it looks like a single person to me (scrutiny welcome). ]·] 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
: This user has been the cause of a lot of edit-wars. I have indef-blocked all the socks/attack users, and also blocked Pkularni for a month as this is a first time offence. I have also made a post at the Indian noticeboard as there were some discussions about the article in question there. - ] (]) 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Note that this was previously reported fir checkuser as ] (but declined). ] 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Great. I was thought of filing a Checkuser for {{user|Shrilankabuddhist}}, and {{user|Dhammafriend}}. ] | ] 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Also Dmcdevit helped me nab ] and his neo-Buddhist socks. THey are related to this case as well.<b>]]</b> 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Green was on 216.254.121.169, so it's unlikely they're related, as they're on different continents. ]·] 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account ]. See the most recent edits and {{Userlinks|Indianbuddhist}}. Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as ] or ] and tendentious editing on ] ). ] 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::Great job done by you. All these low-caste Hindus are harrassing me as ] every time. They don't understand ]. Thanks for your help. ] 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

As per ], please indefinitely block this ]. There is a clear cut consensus. --<small>] ]</small> 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:I am waiting... whats keeping you? --<small>] ]</small> 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Come on guys, why the hesitation? He is asking for it... --<small>] ]</small> 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Stop trying to bait us. It's not big, it's not funny and it's not clever. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I was actually requesting it formally. But very well. ] --<small>] ]</small> 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Cool Cat since he asked for it specifrically. I don't really know what this dispute is about, so if he's being sarcastic I am not really sure what effect he's going for, but when you ask to be indef blocked you should realize it just might happen. If he'd like to explain why he said something he didn't mean, I'm listening. --] 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that's justified purely by the user requesting it. This request smacks of trying to make a ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, we don't usually do requested blocks. Cool Cat was probably just letting off steam, and didn't really want to be blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not a mind-reader, he said he wanted to be blocked. He can now say he didn't actually mean it, if he didn't. At any rate given the joke RFAr I think a block for disruption was coming soon anyway. --] 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Not indefinite though, I think a 2 hour disruption block would be better considering that Cool Cat is a positive contributor. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't get what's positive at all about this tantrum. He should really understand that he shouldn't have done this, apparently he's stubbornly waiting for me/another admin to blink. That may sound like I'm myself venturing close to disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, but I don't at all see blocking him as disrupting Misplaced Pages. If others disagree I respect that and will unblock. --] 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a tantrum. You're blocked now, Cat, so, um, I guess "Mission accomplished". The big wiki keep on turning, Cool Cat keeps on burning. You know how to use the unblock request templates whenever you're ready if ever. - ]</small> (]) 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:I believe that Cool Cat was upset at the lack of support for his position on the page ], where he eventually wrote:
::"I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL. --Cat out 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"
:and:
::"Indefinitely block this idiot. This cool cat guy is only here for a malicious purpose. He should be annoyed harassed like no tomorrow as he has always been. (please check timestamps of evidence too) --Cat out 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"
:I'm sorry he feels that way, but the RfC itself may have been a violation of WP:POINT. I did participate in the RfC, so I am not an uninterested party. Still, I wish him well. --]] 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::User:Cool Cat has been frustrated for the last couple of weeks because a number of Star Trek-related articles that he respects have been put up for AfD, and I believe in a couple of cases deleted. In the process he has crossed paths with User:Elaragirl, a self-described "very aggressive" user and emphatic deletionist (who is currently blocked for 24 hours in an unrelated matter, see discussion above thread "Block of User:Elaragirl") and they have certainly rubbed each other the wrong way. Cool Cat's RfC filing against Elaragirl earlier today received, one could say, less than unanimous support which seems to have upset Cool Cat further.
::Cool Cat has been talking about leaving Misplaced Pages, temporarily or permanently, for a few days now and probably could use a little bit of a Wikibreak. One possibility that occurs to me is that he's sought out a block as a means of Wikibreak enforcement, which I know is not permitted, yet is probably harmless for a couple of days in this instance. ] 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's been unblocked by Bishonen. I don't really mind aside from the minor point that I'd like to at least have been asked about it first before my action was reversed, but whatever. Hopefully Cool Cat will have calmed down and come back. --] 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, I tried to post but got edit conflicted all over the place. I've unblocked because we're not supposed to block on request, just as admins aren't supposed to self-block. Please chill, Cat out. ] | ] 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
::Eh, a single revert of an action is no big deal. Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits? Looks like no harm done, at any rate. ] ] 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's an admin at Commons and is acting this way. Heh. -- ] 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling CC. -- <small> ]</small> 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Bishonen's unblock and second Drini's comment. This looks like an exercise in ]. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe re ] added to CC's frustration. Whatever the real reason is i ask CC to cool down and take easy. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
* Ok, now we have ]. Since I have ] than to get involved in this dispute, does someone else want to deal with this? ]]<sup>(])</sup> 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Penis images ==

Can someone explain what happened over the past few minutes? Many pages were filled with a repeated image ]. ] ''']''' ] 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:It was vandalism at ] - see ] to credit the guy who tracked it down. ] 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict)It's fixed now. ] vandalized the high-risk {{tl|Please check ISBN}} template and it carried over to many articles. Also, the template is now protected. ''']]''' 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
God I hate the Commons. We should have been able to delete that image as soon as it appeared everywhere. ] ''']''' ] 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::We could upload some milder image locally using that same image name. ]|] 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, it was on ]. Can we block a range of IPs? These were from 165.21.155.10 and 165.21.155.11. I suspect he's also ] as well (see the edits to ] from 21:49 to 21:51 on December 5), but it may just be a shared computer. In the past few days, he's put genitalia on the front page (on two separate occasions, with two separate images), and he's given Bill Gates and George W. Bush Down Syndrome. But the other edits ''seem'' very constructive! What to do? <font color="#08457E" vlink="#08457E"><b>]</b></font><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::It would seem prudent to alter the procedure for featured articles, by protecting any template that appears on the page. ] ''']''' ] 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::It looks like it's going to come to that, sadly. It will take a considerable amount of time to do each day, too. But considering we see this kind of vandalism more days than not lately, it looks like we might have to do it. --] 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:He added the image to {{tl|ref label}} as well and thus had himself back-uped when the first of the two templates were reverted (which was {{tl|ref label}}, and you don't want to know how stressing it was to look through 20 templates, finding the vandalism, removing it, and than seeing the articles still having penises all over them...). Anyway, shouldn't templates such as those be protected on a regular basis? They should not generally be edited, and {{tl|ref label}} hadn't been edited since April this year before he came along. &ndash;&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•</small> 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::I have to say that this incident may have convinced me. I have been looking at the dozens of templates on a country page, such as {{tl|AGO}} and {{tl|Country alias Angola}}, and shudder at the thought of trying to locate a piece of vandalism in this haystack. These templates are extensively transcluded and almost never edited and I see very little reason why they shouldn't be protected as a matter of course. - ]] 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, maybe it doesn't have to come to blocking everything. Is it possible for an admin to block a page from ''viewing''? This vandalism was well thought out, and took a while to get fixed. If an admin could stop all views on a page while they worked on reverting it, I think that would be helpful... <font color="#08457E" vlink="#08457E"><b>]</b></font><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Stop all views of Today's Featured Article (the main target)? I doubt that would go down well – ] 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:The image of choice is now ] --] 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::The image says it links to two articles, but I can't seem to find it at all.—] (]) 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Use ] to prevent the use of an image on all but select appropriate articles. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:I have (temporarlly) put all images listed in the commons category into the bad image list. We no doubt will want to remove them all again soon but maybe for now it might help... ++]: ]/] 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

<- please keep an eye on this. --] 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also at ] (though the image was ]). careful monitoring is needed for a few hours. these are ''sneaky''. ] 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By my count, about 11 of the templates within today's Main Page FA, ] were vandalized. I know there's still ] on whether the Main Page FA itself should have protection or not, but there's really no reason that the templates on the Main Page FA, or even Templates in general, shouldn't have semi-protection. A new IP user making a good faith edit really has no business mucking around in the Templates.--] 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:] needs protection. Its just been targeted by the same vandal. ] 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Protected. ] 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Why does Commons even HAVE so many pictures of penises? And can it not set up some "blacklist", and have images on that list ''not'' be automatically fetched from commons when a local copy doesn't exist? Seems to me that would solve a lot of problems – ] 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: That sort of defeats the purpose of having Commons, though, and it would presumably be new development. I did add all the images in the category (there may still be others) to the blacklist as a temporary measure (thank you ] for making generating that list easy!). Other hardworking admins (Centrx and BanyanTree) reviewed the list and made it permanent. That really should help. Don't forget there ARE legitimate uses for some of the images, after all...) ++]: ]/] 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

===Template vandalism still happening?===
From it looks like the template vandalism is still going on. Can someone protect '''all''' the templates used in this article, please? Plus the templates used in the templates... ] 12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:Found another at ], used on 4903 pages, including the 1.5 millionth article. I got geni to sprotect. --] 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

===Other discussions on this topic===
Other discussions on this topic are ], ], ] and ]. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. ] 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::You know, we've been seeing a lot of more of this as of late: template vandalism to the FA (and often penis images as well). I wonder if it's the same idiot, or if they're somehow connected (hope no one said this before).-]<sup>]|]</sup> 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I was getting the same problems with ] last night, which caused penis images to appear on various Russian articles. I am hoping most of the damage got fixed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::And he strikes again. I just saw a penis on a template linked to by ], which is ]. This guy's making us protect every template in existence. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{editcount|Highfructosecornsyrup}}
{{editcount|Wikipediatrix}}

It seems my/our suspicions of this user being a sockpuppet were well founded, however the editor responsible was certainly a shock. Checkuser confirms the perp is definitely ] - and, to quote Essjay;
:"The sock appears to have been a straw-man sock, and was used for double voting (albiet, opposite votes) in several AFDs. What to do with it should be left to the admins."
There are also disputes on various Scientology articles talk pages in which the sock has been used to directly breach ].

So, question is, where to from here. As a "involved party" I would appreciate input. No blocks have been issued at this time ''']''' 05:44, December 8, 2006 (UTC)
::Er, double voting and breaches of SOCK are shocking and unacceptable for an editor who has been around so long. At the very least the sock should be indef'd and Wikipediatrix given a week block to prevent her from continuing this behaviour and to think about her actions seriously. At the least. ] | ] 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Wow. I mean yeah. That's completely unacceptable. What Pschemp said (I'm somewhat involved having welcomed the user and been the first editor to ask if the editor had previous experience and argued with the editor about deletion matters). I'm probably too involved to make the block. ] 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::: (many edit conflicts) Well now, this is very bizarre. Of course block Highfructosecornsyrup indef. Beyond that I don't know what to do. ''So weird''... ]]] 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::The sock is blocked. I'd prefer to leave Wikipediatrix to a more experienced admin; my recommendation would be a short-term block per ], and if everyone else here is conflicted, I'll do the block myself. | ] <small>]</small> 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree with a short-term block, <s>perhaps a week.</s> --''']]''' 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Actually, looking over the user's history, a longer block might be needed, possibly more than a week (I'd suggest maybe two weeks). --''']]''' 06:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I'm actually usually the conservative one on block length, but I make a real distinction between disruption and outright deceit. Two weeks is the minimum block I would apply in this case. I think the block length should at least equal the length of time for the sock account, which would be about two weeks. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Just in case no-one saw it, my reccomendations (which I gave immediately following the findings from Essjay being published) are here. '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
* Wow. I have asked Wikipediatrix what gives. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having studied (thanks, in part, to the excellent articles we have here) the history of Scientology in detail, I'd like to know if there's any feasible way of framing someone in this way? ] 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipediatrix around in a lot of AfDs, and him using a sock puppet like this... doesn't make sense. Maybe there's something more to this? Maybe he knows this guy in real life and they were using the same internet connection at one point? I mean, really, it doesn't make sense. -- ] 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)



''Wait a second''. 'Trix stopped editing on the 29th, and before then, CornSyrup made '''no''' edits to CoS related pages. The CoS edits on the fructose account are '''all''' after trix disappeared. What the f... is going on here? ] 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' - The sockpuppet didn't start editing until a week before Wikipediatrix stopped. There is little overlapping... I wonder if Wikipediatrix was planning to ditch her original account and get a new username for privacy, and voted opposite votes to disassociate the identities? If so, you guys have just taken a cannonball to that plan :-\ ] 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

* '''FYI''' For a full summary of the articles, and all the individual diffs showing the pages common to both accounts ''']''' ''']''' 11:14, December 8, 2006 (UTC)


I think the people questioning this are unfamiliar with how checkuser works so let me give you and example. Essjay's findings show that these two edits were made within minutes of each other using the exact same underlying IP address and no other users have used that IP address. There is no way this is more than one user, the IP isn't an open proxy.

*(cur) (last) 03:50, November 29, 2006 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs | block) (removed rant. this isn't a chat room.)
*(cur) (last) 03:41, November 29, 2006 Highfructosecornsyrup (Talk | contribs | block) (→List of Teletubbies episodes)

This, combined with the diffs Glen has listed are pretty damming. Plus, I've no reason to doubt the checkuser results. Additionally, the fact that Wikipediatrix stopped editing about the time the sock became really active is even more proof in my book. I've blocked for a week. ] | ] 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand how a checkuser works, however I believe that the pattern of editing here is closer to that of two people using the same computer than that of a user deliberately socking. See ]. ] 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Er, two people who used the same computer within 11 minutes of each other who also edited the exact same articles? Highly doubtful. ] | ] 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I would say possible myself... A lot of people have home networks and therefore several computers could appear as the same IP (a closed proxy).
:::However, I am not saying that this is the case - I am just a little bewildered by the fact that a previous good editor suddenly does all of this. It is a little bit strange is it not?
:::Has anyone actually emailed her to find out what she has to say?-]<sup>]</sup> 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I'd say it was strange except that it has happened before and more than once. Remember ] for example. And then there was the guy who was vandalising under one account and reverting it under another. Anyone is welcome to email the user, and a message has been left on the talkpage. Should a plausible explanation be put forward, things can be reconsidered, nothing on the wiki is permanent. However, right now, I feel I've done what the situation warranted. ] | ] 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::True, but she's been defending the articles against the CoS on a daily basis for over a year now, in fact she's one of the main causes behind ] being FA. Why would she suddenly switch sides? Maybe I'm assuming too much good faith, but I can't help smelling fish. Anyway, as you say, nothing's permanent. ] 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I've just sent her an email. However, she's not edited for the last 10 days, so I don't know if she's anywhere near a computer. Maybe she's married Tom cruise... ] 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately yandman, whilst I applaud your ability to continue to assume good faith it the most dire of circumstances and look for any rationale that could explain this, I must invoke ]; you are wrong. You are excluding one vital factor in your assumptions; The fact that I asked four or five direct questions this user regarding their previous experience, and they denied they had ever edited here, and learned by watching us for two years. (see )
This would have been the perfect opportunity to tell use her roommate was an avid editor... or another such explanation. So, its Wikipediatrix, no question there. But, I do have some serious concerns that need answering about all this that havent been discussed. (see next post) ] 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Here's the rub:''' This is the fucking perplexing thing about all this. It is ''directly because of Wikipediatrix that I am even here at all.'' She actually about my website that caused me to find Misplaced Pages. A website that parodies Scientology and Tom Cruise. When questions arose about merging the article, she defended it. Almost exactly a year to the day later, I am lodging the Checkuser request that gets her blocked But... (see my next post...) ''']''' 17:00, December 8, 2006 (UTC)
:::This is better than CSI! ] 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


A two-word question: &nbsp; wireless router? <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''16:44, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
:Yes, that is a good point but what speaks against it is that wikipediatrix diappears and HFCS appears. If she was being played you would expect both editors to be active during the same overall time frame. I have a few ideas but none worth repeating and none that speak to her blocks. --] 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Guys, please look at the facts here: 1) They edited the same pages, and within minutes of each other. 2) Wikipediatrix stopped about the time that Syrup picked up, 3) There is no other activity from this IP, 4) Syrup immediately jumped into administrative level stuff. I know people don't want to believe she's capable of it, but gosh, to be a rather blunt: if it looks, feels, tastes and smells like sockpuppetry, it's probably sockpuppetry. The chances of this being a coincidence are about the chance you'll win the lottery today. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Undeniable. But why would someone spend two years fighting Al and terryeo and then suddenly turn into them? There's gotta be one heck of an explanation somewhere. ] 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glen S above. A few people are tying themselves in knotts here trying to explain what is pretty clear to me. I think the burden is fairly on Wikipediatrix to explain the situation if we are wrong about the deception and sockpuppetry, and I highly doubt that we are. I still think a one week block is not long enough and would prefer to see it extended to two weeks, and even this seems like maybe not enough. This type of deliberate, willful deception is far more disruptive than your typical willy on wheels vandal, so my recommendation for a longer block is not for punative reasons, but to allow time for the damage caused to be undone and for the community to reflect upon this incident without having to worry that it is continuing. Note that I have had ''no'' interactions with either of these accounts, so there is no personal stake for me in my statements here. It is simply a reaction to the scope of the damage to people's trust in the community that behavior like this causes. I think perhaps an ArbCom case should be opened in this matter, but I will leave that decision to people more closely connected to the events. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:The situation indeed is quite odd, but the editor has been asked for some sort of explanation, both on her talkpage and I father via e-mail. I would suggest that any further action be held in abeyance until we see whether she posts anything and what she has to say. ] 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::agree. Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time. I agree that we've all been deceived and that an arbcom is definitely needed, but Misplaced Pages hasn't really been damaged, so there's little cause for alarm. Let's let this one play out. ] 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::"Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time." And what does that tell us. Cause I have to tell you, guys, she did much more credible work as Fructose than she did as Trix. And I don't think that comes from my POV as a Scientologist either. At least over the period I've been here and also her older edits that I have worked with. --] 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::I agree we can wait for a response before extending the block. However, if we have no response by the time the one week block expires, I suggest and indef block until we at least get a response. As to the statement from Yandman regarding "Misplaced Pages hasn't really been damaged", I respectfully disagree. I repeat that these actions are far more damaging than a blatant serial vandal, and I can't see anyone arguing that that doesn't cause damage. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::what do you see as damaging? The edits by wikipediatrix? The edits by HFCS? Or something else? --] 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Primarily the undermining of trust. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hmmmm, true. But we never really know who we are dealing with and should govern ourselves accordingly. I wonder what precedent wikipedia has experienced for something like this. --] 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::No frakking way!!! This is surreal... There must be another explanation. Maybe she is on vacation and someone is using her computer? We absolutely need to hear what she has to say before we do anything permanent. Including the ban of HFCS. As far as I am concerned all that has been done thus far is that another rational editor of Scn arcticles has been banned for life. ---] 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Calm down, nobody has been banned for life. Read the discussion more carefully. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

===Update===
See Wikipediatrix's explanation and comments ]. ] 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:Based on that response I think the current 1 week block is the appropriate response and it can end there. Regardless of intent, double voting, switching back and forth over short periods of time, and contributing with both accounts to the same articles without disclosure is disruptive. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, and the deliberate dissemination when Highfructosecornsyrup querried regarding previous experience here. That was disruptive in all the effort that has been expended getting the straight answer that should have been forthcoming when first asked. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Interesting. I was going to ask why the block because I did not see anything wrong with Fructose's edits and socks are not specifically disallowed. Changing your mind is also not disallowed. Then I checked and saw that she had voted keep on two of her own AfDs so that is somewhat disingenuous and grounds for some short block. Other than that did trix/syrup do anything really wrong other than torque people off. Hell, trix sure torqued me when acting the critic. --] 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::The relevant policy is ]. A week seems right. ] 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Something still doesn't smell right about this: a one week block for a death threat? I'd like to see the diff of that threat. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:Discussed ]. ] 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes lets just make this perfectly clear; Wikipediatrix '''did not make''' any death threats, nor anything remotely close. She was informing me of a blocked user who had made them on his talk page. That's all. Lets kill that rumor now. I've only just turned my PC on so still processing the rest of all this. ''']''' 05:18, December 9, 2006 (UTC)
:No she didn't, I misread the diff. I have however, corrected the blocking reason in the log. No need for anyone to get excited. ] | ] 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, I wasnt clarifying that for you Pschemp, was aware you well understood; just making it crystal clear to anyone else just quickly browsing over this before a whole new conspiracy begins.
:::Yeah i knew you weren't. I was just making clear to casual readers of the page that the mistake had been fixed. ] | ] 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well, regarding her explanation, I guess I'm kinda relieved. Was anything resolved regarding the block? My concern about what she did lies solely around ]. There were changes she wanted made, obviously, and it was her doing them via a new account with no explanation that caused all the edit warring, and, is the reason this whole section/checkuser was done in the first place. Take, for example, . Now Wikipediatrix ''started and in fact wrote that entire article'' - yet, days later - marks '''her own work''' as a copyvio with the sock! Now if she'd done that with her main account, as the creator, no one would doubt her. But instead edit warring ensued. Wikipediatrix was the last person to edit the template, and made some fairly big changes; the very next edit is her, as the sock, removing info... and again edit warring ensued. The socks intentions seemed to everyone to be to disrupt. Thus it effectively got nowhere. Wikipediatrix is respected enough to have mde those changes and for us all to AGF. But then I cant imagine Wikipediatrix making such sweeping removals, and ] without discussing it first... But, I guess ''Wikipediatrix'' did. ''']''' 06:24, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix has had a long history of contentious editing on this project. This just soldifies it. Frankly, I'm not surprised. ] ] ] 08:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::Well, apologies to everyone for my excessive good faith. What a waste of time. ] 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== TerriNunn = NerriTunn ==
(See also ], ].}

She has returned under the name NerriTunn, and it personally attacking me , and . Please, please, could an admin do something. ] (Have a nice day!) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:Those personal attacks amount to nothing less than trolling. Block and harsh words required. ] 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::I issued a single warning to her to knock it off. If she persists, I'll indef-block, but since the last block was for ], I want to give her one chance to straighten up and fly right. | ] <small>]</small> 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::LOL, that username seems to have just a ''bit'' of ] to it, no? ]<sup>]|]</sup> 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hmm...I didn't see this section before I blocked her for being a sockpuppet of a blocked account. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::The original account was only blocked for the User name, blocking someone who comes in with a new User name shouldn't be automatic. I would support an unblocking and a final warning. ]|] 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I actually did just that about an hour ago. She gets a short leash, but she gets a leash nonetheless. | ] <small>]</small> 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::She just created ], a blatant POV fork of ]. I slapped an AfD on it, but am curious if it would be appropriate for me to either delete the page entirely or to blank it and make it a redirect to ]. Just didn't want to overstep my admin-bounds here. | ] <small>]</small> 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Delete and recreate as a redirect. Sprotect if necessary. ]|] 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

==Xenophobia==
Are posts like these from ] acceptable?
# Ethnic slurs, nationalist sentiment, coterie formation.
# Xenophobia
# Threatening admin Ragib
#Spamming hate sites
#] remarks
# Baiting
# Xenophobia and falsehood (] has multiple flags)
# - declares he will edit war together with the help of ] (extremist views per RfC ) ] 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:He continues trolling on ]. See {{Userlinks|Nadirali}} ] 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::I've given him a . -- ''']''' 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:*Just a note; he to have admitted to being a ], I would think that would warrant an immediate block, no? -- ''']
<sup>]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::*While we're on the topic, is the list of ''"threats to world peace and stability"'' this user has on his userpage really necessary? It seems to me that it will do nothing except cause disputes. -- '''] <sup>]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::*Hmm... nah. He threatens to become one, but doesn't say that he has. --] 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems you have ganged up against me a third time.Im not stupid enough to ignor that.This whole affair would not have continued had you stopped threatening user:Sadiqui along with calling me a "madrassa student" and vandalizing my comments on the Pakistan talk page.Regarding the "sock puppet",I only have one account.I lost my temper at ragib because I was under the impression that he was taking sides against me.As for the flags,you probably never heard of ].User:Szhaider has similar content on his user page.I also find it curious that you HelklerHekler and your freinds happen to post approximately the same time when attacking me or other Pakistani wikipedians with your anti-Pakistan sentiments.Is falsly reporinting me to an administrator while hiding your own violations your way of getting back at me?] 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
Let's talk about Xenophobia then:
"where did you read this? '''In a Pakistani madarassa?''' C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the ]. '''Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education.''' --]|] 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)'''"
'''Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.] 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)'''
::I also believe that '''paks''' are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--] 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? '''It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.''']
There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation.
This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with '''another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against and Christians and selling on every street-corner in Lahore(, PBS). .Gee whiz, what a paradise! ] 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)'''
Here's your Xenophobia.Hope I didnt scare you by revealing all the racist stuff '''you''' posted along with '''demonizing Pakistanis'''.] 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

*Oh for goodness sakes. Misplaced Pages is ]. You've both violated ] and ]. I think both these users could use a short time-out. -- '''] <sup>]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond).This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I . ] 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned , effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war).] 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Im not going to say much.But people should know that it was '''not I''' who started the personal attacks.And regarding the "formation",that's exactly what Hklelkar and his fellow nationalists do by posting together and attacking other wikipedians such as me.That's all I have to say.Thankyou] 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

To pipe in, I've had conversation with this fellow a few times and his tone seems to me to be unapologetically contentious, xenophobic, paranoid, rife with a sense of persecution, ultra-nationalistic, anti-Indian, anti-Hindu, and generally trollish. Top that off with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation/space usage, and a strong inclination to delete other people's comments on talk pages and/or edit them (by changing copy or interspersing his own commentary), and I am beginning to think this guy is going to be a thorn in the side of most people he decides to disagree with (which it seems is most people). He demonstrates a lack of good faith and a willingness to play tit-for-tat over perceived slights (i.e., comments that disagree with his opinions or make note of his behavior). Taking him at face value he seems to be genuine in his rationale, and not just being disruptive for sport. But he should probably be watched closely and given more serious consequences for continuing his unpleasant behavior.

By the way, some of the comments above ARE baiting, and not constructive. If you don't like this guy's approach, don't comment on his background. Comment on his approach. I understand that discussions of South Asian religion and politics can be rocky, but don't feed a troll like this guy. If you want to debate these issues, at least keep ] comments out of it. ] 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:] is banned for a year for other reasons. ]|] 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Images on ] ==

The article for ] has been protected due to edit warring regarding the permissibility of two images &ndash; ] and ] &ndash; with disputed fair-use rationales. Some have complained that part of the reason the images ought to be removed is that they are meant to play on people's heartstrings rather than be informative. However, in an attempt to contest this theory, {{user|Striver}} has posted fourteen pictures used in other Misplaced Pages articles to the article's ] &ndash; related to ], ], and the ]. At least one editor complained about the images, and I agreed with his sentiment. I believe the display of the images are pushing a ] violation, as they appear merely there for shock value (and, ironically, pulling on heartstrings). It looks like the approach was something along the lines of ''compared to those fourteen gruesome images, the two images for this article are nothing'', which, in my opinion, is not an appropriate approach to deciding the correctness of a fair-use rationale. So, my question is, should these images be removed from the talk page or am I just over-reacting? -- ''']''' 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:While not an admin, I took a look at the page in question. That entire talk page is absolutely filled with violations of everything from ] to ], ] and ]. The images of the Armenian Genocide (I didn't see any there from the Holocaust) and from 9/11 serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with. On the subject of the pictures, the ''gaza morgue'' image is clearly irrelevant as it could just as easily be a picture of people crying in any city in the world on any random occasion. While I could be convinced as to the relevance of the ''blood'' image, simply standing on its own in the article would not give it any useful purpose. In contrast, if there were images available of Israeli troops during the event itself, or some other topical image from the event itself, I could see its relevance more surely. -- '''] <sup>]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::The images under ] are from the Holocaust. -- ''']''' 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I came here due to a message from Tariqabjotu, so thanks for the notice.

I dispute that edit warring is regarding the fair use ratinal of the pictures, that is in my view a obvious distraction that will no succed: any one who is impartial will recoqnize that they fullfill all the cirteria for fair use.If they indeed would have been fair-use breach, one of them would not have been undeleted after i took it to deletion review, complaining that "one" admin had deleted it out of process, and that it indeed was fair use.

WP:POINT is not applicable since it states that one should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. The other pictures are not there to make a point, they are there as an argument. That is a huge difference. If my article gets deleted, and i afd another article, that would be POINT, ie to do something one in reality does not endorse, to prove its inappropriateness. The additional pictures serve no such purpose, they are not there to demonstrate the inappropriateness of anything. WP:POINT would be to go to Holocaust, 911 and Armenian Genocide, and removing those pictures arguing that they are "pulling on heartstrings" (what a nonsensical made up rule!). So no, POINT is not applicable.

"They apear for shoch value". C'mon, if they were shock site-picture, they would not be on wikipedia to start with. They are on stable articles and nobody is disputing their appropriateness on those articles - it is very weak to argue that they are appropriate on article main space, but not appropriate on a talk page regarding a dispute of the appropriateness of war time pictures.

"serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with". Is ''"to debunk an opinion which they disagree with"'' not enough reason in it self? C'mon, we are talking about a talk page, talk pages are there to present arguments and debunk false arguments.

Regarding the validity of including any individual picture in that article, this is not the place to comment or respond to comments regarding that, the article talk page exists for that. Further, i would like to make clear that i am the one actively engaged in trying to find a solution to this problem. I talk on the talk page, i invited third parties. When that did not work, i created a RFC. Now, this did not work either, and i have filed a request to the ]. understand that i am working in accordance to policies and guidelines and have no interest in breaching either of them, it is me that is following the dispute resolution process, it is not me that is unitarility deleting images out of process, it is not me that is removing peoples comments and arguments in the talk page and it is not me that have been warned and ] and ], rather, it is me reporting those kinds of behaviors. Further, i want to make clear that i am not the only one advocating the right to present the images on the talk page as arguments, at least two other users have supported their inclusion. That is the talk page, that is were we present arguments. And those are pictures used on Misplaced Pages articles, so how could they be good enough for an article, but be "to shocking" on a talk page? Are we going to deny one side the ability to present arguments in good faith? Peace. --] 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see to understand what kind of opposition we are facing. It is a challenge on its own to not loose patience when seeing those things. adding to the incivility and that people try to side-step the main issue by invoking fair use disputes and denying one side to present arguments is not helping either. This is a highly infected debate, and it would not surprise me if i will be forced to go all the way in the dispute resolution process. --] 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:OK. I've been tangentially involved in similar disputes, which may make me slightly biased, but if this one is anything like any of the others, I'll have to say back up Striver. This appears to be yet another example of the ridiculous Israel POV-warriors vs. ridiculous the Muslim POV-warriors, not about FU. While I was on a similar page, I felt people were using excuses to get each image suggestion removed, and it doesn't surprise me that the fair-use criteria has come up on this page either. Striver was doing nothing more than saying, "hey, look, these other images are part of WP articles, so why shouldn't this article have one?". Because it was not a FU argument, but a content argument (or at least, Striver saw it that way), this was ''not'' a WP:POINT violation, but a reasonable request. That's my two cents, I may be wrong, but it's what it seems to me. All said, I wouldn't mind seeing every Israel-Arab article on this entire encyclopedia full-protected until people learn to work out their differences. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:*I agree it's not a Fair Use issue, but I do think that it is a valid content dispute... though by definition that would then not be dealt with here. To make it seem like it's cut-and-dry though, as Striver seems to be doing, is fallacious. -- '''] <sup>]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::*That being said, Striver, you could have just linked to the images, rather than displaying them, which was kind of untasteful. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:: As I've said on the talk page already there is a serious fair use problem with putting the images on the talk page (at minimum). Furthermore, I'll note that the dif Striver gave is from an anon using a dynamic IP who all editors (even the more pro-Israel ones) are reverting on sight- the user has been blocked for personal attacks twice before. That dif is not a representative sample of the situation. ] 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was not a query about the fair-use images for the article, but rather the display of the Holocaust, 9|11, and genocide images on the talk page. I won't stop you from discussing the fair-use images, though. -- ''']''' 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:And really, the repeated references to Hitler and the Holocaust during the discussion have contributed ''significantly'' to the atmosphere of incivility. Admittedly I've seen it on both sides, but the pictures only aggravate it.--] 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

The article ] is absolute nonsense with a single google hit from a MySpace blog and the article is a copyright violation of that blog . The author, {{user|Blazingnikons}}, continued to remove the speedy tag and after a series of warnings suddenly has supporters: {{user|Philophile}} and {{user|Sumyunggui4thgt}} whose edits consist of removing the speedy tag and then writing on the talk page summaries that basically consist of ''oh I've heard of this, you should keep it''. There is clear sockpuppetry here but it doesn't yet meet criteria for a checkuser. Can the page be protected until an admin looks at it for speedy? It is driving me nuts to have to keep putting the tag back on as brand new users show up and remove it. {{user|Amor fati}} showed up and removed it with the edit summary of ''I have deemed that I have grounds to remove all notices of speedy deletion, since I, myself, did not create this page but do not feel that it meets criteria for speedy deletion'' which is just absolute nonsense. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm... We also have {{user|SliverTissue}} who spammed it across several pages.—] (]) 09:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::I've speedied the article for copyvio and protected it for the time being to prevent further disruption. I've left the talk page alone for now, as it might be useful to deal with the socks. ] 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::...and would some more experienced admins please attend to the socks? My feeling is to final-warn or block the original author (he's also created {{la|Xenantropism}}, a personal attack page, now also speedied) and to block the evident socks, but I've no time now to hunt for the appropriate templates... ] 10:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::{{tl|suspsock}}, {{tl|blockedsock}}...—] (]) 10:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::{{user|Philophile}} has recreated the article as ]. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. --] 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::OK, all blocked/deleted now, thanks! Any admin who thinks this is too harsh may undo these actions at will. ] 11:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:] (] <small>•</small> ]) has now confirmed via CheckUser that ] == ] but not ]. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==
] was moved to ] on 30 November by ] (] <small>•</small> ]), leaving Czechoslovakia as a redirect. Subsequently ] (] <small>•</small> ]) changed the page to a dab. Needless to say, several thousand links were left pointing to the dab page. I reverted today when I noticed it. ] (] <small>•</small> ]) and ] (] <small>•</small> ]) have reverted me. Well I'm not going to edit war over it. Perhaps I'm being dense, but it seems to me that unless the people that want a dab page are willing to fix the links, the convenience of readers should come first. Thanks, ] ] 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:Is there a reason we've separated the article on Czechoslovakia into three parts? I don't believe we've done that with other countries. ] is one article, for example. | ] <small>]</small> 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::The reason appears to be that Domino theory thought it was a good idea, apparently pissing off the other editors mentioned. I'd have thought that the answer would be reeducate Domino Theory and revert everything to the way it was on November 29 or thereabouts. I'm not sure it's that simple; presumably Themightyquill, et al, would have done that if it was. The multiple-articles situation is old, what's new is whacking great chunks out of ex-]. ] ] 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::OK, we need to put everything back together. An article division/redirect like that should be done with the consensus of the editors involved. | ] <small>]</small> 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:I doubt that anyone wants a disambiguation page. Certainly I don't. But the redirect was even worse. Fortunately, MrDarcy has restored the article now, so the problem is solved. --] 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Complex vandalism? ==

{{User|Bowser Koopa}} was blocked November 24 for blatant vandalism to several pages, including ]. A few days later, I blocked {{User|Bowser, King of the Koopas}} as an obvious sockpuppet of Bowser Koopa (this sock vandalized the same pages including John Cena). {{User|The Showster}} shows up and starts a category page about the vandal. The Showster was actually created within 10 minutes of the creation of Bowser, King of the Koopas, and concentrated on wrestling articles too (but didn't vandalize). With the veracity in which The Showster was creating (and recreating after it was deleted) the category page, I had some suspicions about the user's intentions and posted this to ANI ]. Steel359 deleted the category but wasn't so sure about the sockpuppet part. In addition, {{User|You're The Man Now Dog}} was helping The Showster out with the category. You're The Man Now Dog was also created within the same 10 minute span of The Showster and Bowser, King of the Koopas on November 27th. You're The Man Now Dog was blocked a few days ago for vandalism to, among other wrestling pages, John Cena.

Now, The Showster has posted on his talk page that he is blocked under an autoblock because of {{User|Crazy Commander}}'s block. What was Crazy Commander blocked for? Vandalism to the John Cena article.

Can some other admins look at this too? It really does seem like all the users are the same person. ] 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:Update: They've all been blocked as socks. ] returned a bunch of socks and an IP address that have been blocked. ] has been unprotected. Bowser Koopa claims himself a martyr. And all the world's a happy place. ] 14:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)



== Suspected identity theft ==

Has ]&nbsp;{{userlinks-abbr|Deltabeignet|admin=yes}} been hijacked by a vandal? See ] and neighboring sections for incidents. &mdash; ] 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

: Hello, does anyone read this? The user now replied, which could be a good sign. However, the reply looks not like what you would expect from of an experienced editor of over 8000 edits. &mdash; ] 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC) {{User:SebastianHelm/unwatched}}

: This is not getting better. As I feared, he seems to be blocking users that question him, at least that's what someone said on my talk page. I have no interest in getting drawn into this much more, so I will simply copy all evidence I'm aware of here and will direct all conversation here. &mdash; ] 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:I must protest. I blocked a self-avowed sockpuppet of a hard-banned user. Purely administrative stuff, unrelated to this matter. ] 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

===Evidence from ]===
I am copying this evidence in its entirety since Deltabeignet makes use of his freedom to delete what he doesn't like on his user page. &mdash; ] 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==== ] revert ====

Hello, I've seen you've reverted my "rv unmotivated deletion" commit here in Guitar pick article. Can you explain if there's any rationale behind it? I don't see that phrase as meaningless, it emphasises that guitar pick style is a matter of personal preference. --] 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

==== Two more unexplained reverts to vandalism ====
and . As I explained in my summaries, I had reverted deletions by an editor who already has been warned several times. But you provide no summary for your reverts. Did someone hijack your account? &mdash; ] 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

: One edit you reverted was a ; the other was an . Remember, the removal of text by an anonymous user does not automatically equal vandalism. ] 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks for your reply. I'm still not sure if I'm really talking with your old self. You used to be conscientious about this, so it is strange that you wouldn't write summaries anymore, not even for deletions of whole sections. Also, your explanation about the edits shows no knowledge of the applicable Misplaced Pages policies, which doesn't quite fit to an experienced editor of over 8000 edits. &mdash; ] 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC) {{User:SebastianHelm/replyhere}}

::All right, I'll come clean. I have been editing anonymously as ], as part of an informal experiment to investigate how anonymous editors are treated when making good-faith removals of unsourced material. (I still defend the edits themselves; as Jimbo has stressed, speculative material must be .) I have also been using my admin powers to roll back any reversions of my anonymous edits, to see if anyone would challenge an admin making the same edits.
::My deepest apologies to you if you if anything I've done has offended or threatened you in any way. I don't intend to make any more anonymous edits, and am willing to accept any consequences for what I have done. ] 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::: This is a weird story! Why did you not come clean when you got blocked in October? I still don't see any evidence that you are the same as the original Deltabeignet. It is a well known fact among experienced editors that Jimbo followed up on his remark and that we have an unmistakable policy about this which you violated. Moreover, you blatantly violated several other core policies, not to improve Misplaced Pages, but only to prove your point. &mdash; ] 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I realized from the start that I was going right against ], among other things. If you are seriously concerned that I'm an impostor, I give you my word that I am the same person who was ]. I admit that I've grown a little disillusioned with the project since then, which is as good an explanation as I can give for what I've done. Again, I'll accept any consequences.
:::(By the way, I don't remember either my username or my IP being blocked in October; could you clarify that?) ] 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't really understand where SebastianHelm's accusation that you're not you is coming from (he posted it at ]), but I did want to say that I consider the breaching experiment rather uncool. I'm glad you don't intend to keep at it. If there's one thing to be learned from the ] affair, as far as I'm concerned, it's that if there's a hole, we should try to fix it together, not poke at it and see how big it needs to be before someone notices. (Also, I suspect that if an anon removed blatant OR with a clear edit summary, it would not be reverted.) ] 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::: Chick, you're misunderstanding me. I did not bring this up as an accusation. To the contrary, it was ''because'' I believe in the old, the good Deltabeignet that I thought of that possibility. It still has not been disproven, but I am sorry that it is becoming less and less likely - I would have wished it was all just a bad dream.
::::: Since Deltabeignet makes use of his right to delete what he doesn't like on this page, I will copy this discussion to ] (which, BTW may be a misnomer, but I don't want to change it since it would break the links pointing there). Please continue the discussion there. &mdash; ] 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==== Gothic Metal ====
Please do not blank articles. Doing so is considered ]. Continued abuse of this nature can lead to temporaty or even permenant bans in accordance with ]. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

: This apparently refers to , which was immediately before Deltabeignet's reply above (summarized as "the gig is up"). &mdash; ] 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

''<font color=red>This whole section, including SebastianHelm's remark, was ]</font>''

==== Blocks of ] ====

When you block IPs used by Leyasu, could you please make a note of it on the page for the arbitration cases where he has been involved? (] and ]) It gives us a good, central place to keep a log of the IPs he has been using; the arb cases also specified listing the blocks there. --] (]) 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
*No problem. ] 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


===Evidence from ] ===
IN ], an anonymous user, who say he's {{User|Leyasu}} and who is, well quite "a character", complains about being banned by Deltabeignet after Leyasu reverted Deltabeignet's blanking of the article ]. He posted on my talk page under the addresses {{user|217.44.161.138}}, {{user|81.157.69.113 }}, and {{user|81.153.142.241}}. &mdash; ] 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Leyasu may be blocked on sight as he is banned after exhausting the community's patience. A wekk long block for his IP address is excessive, though, since he seems to be able to change his IP rather easily when he wants to. ] 08:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks for checking this! &mdash; ] 08:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Highly offensive userpage ==

This user's page is blatantly offensive to Muslims, pagans, and homosexuals, to name only a few groups mentioned therein. My reading of ] regarding "Polemical statements" seems to indicate that Dwain's page is in clear violation of the ] policy. ] 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:His user page does not seem offensive at all; nor can I see any mention of muslam. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) There's the quote. That said, he doesn't say much more than what a lot of people say about Christianity, and "to name only a few" seems groundless. --] 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::Matthew, see the quotation on the very top of the page for what is being referred to there. ] 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Yes, and the reporting IP probably also means the bolded "quotes" towards the bottom. 141.154.220.74, please first try to resolve this issue by discussing it with ] himself before alerting administrators. ] 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::That's because it's not ], but ], which is where the user actually complained (contribs show this). I have no idea why the link is different, but Dwain also maintains a very polemical Freemasonry page linked from his user page that borders on libel, as he has inflammatory statements regarding Freemasonry placed right before a list of Masons on Misplaced Pages. ] 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Actually, it appears to be both: ] seems to be the main account that does most of the 'real' editing, but that account's user and talk page redirect to the secondary account, ], which is used mainly for userspace edits. the user also signs with a piped link that reads 'Dwaian', but links to 'Pitchka', which redirects back to 'Dwain.' Is that kosher? It seems like it would just cause confusion, as above, and make it more difficult to access the contribution history of the editor you're dealing with. -- ] | ] 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::I think the quotes should be removed. He's entitled to his opinion, but this is a bit too much. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::He also seems to enjoy in a little libel himself every once and a while. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3ADwain&diff=92489363&oldid=92436162 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dwain&diff=prev&oldid=92436062 ] 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Given the precedent regarding this sort of behavior I think an indefinite ban is in order. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of misbehavior from a new user, why should we tolerate it from ]? ] 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This man is a dick. However, the views he is expressing on his userpage are typical devout American Catholic opinions - you can't block him for that. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::It has been made clear that maintaining a userpage with controversial material designed to be polemical is '''trolling''' and can be punished for as such. Need I also mention that he deliberately libels Wikipedians who are also Masons? That seems like deliberately disruptive conduct. ] 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I was saying that his userpage, as it stands, is not offensive but religious. If he's disrupting the wiki, sure, ban him, but blocking him for being devout and/or redneck isn't a good idea. ] (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I find it offensive. I find it to be a deliberate bit of trolling intended to incite disruption. That is not what wikipedia is for. After all the stuff that went on in the userbox wars, it seems patently obvious to me that polemical and uncivil material is not welcome on wikipedia, in ANY space.--] 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Calling it a "typical devout Catholic opinion" is a bit of an over-generalization... My experience with Dwain/Pitchka has been that he has virtually no understanding or regard for ], but if we start indef blocking for that, there are an awful lot of editors and admins who wouldn't be editing here anymore. I do think one of his accounts should be blocked though because he edits from both of them and it is damn confusing if you aren't watching very closely to discern those accounts are the same person. To be clear, I've never seen him do any abusive sockpuppeting, but unless he has a very good reason for running two accounts he should be given the option of keeping one active and having the other locked. He can link to the contribs for the other account from the userpage of whichever account he choses to stick with. From what I see there is no good reason he has two accounts.--] 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't want to see any user blocked for his religious beliefs or lack thereof. As far as I can see, the paramount issue here is the use of two accounts for one editor, which I believe is verboten. Let's ask him to stick to one account, and handle any mainspace issues as they occur. | ] <small>]</small> 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of highly offensive userpages, does qualify? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]</span> 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:I think it is -- ] 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Whoa, whoa, slow down here. Indef ban? I've seen people put pornography on their pages and not get indef banned. He was expressing his personal opinion, albeit it with the tact of a hammer. Misplaced Pages policy says he needs to remove it, but an indef ban is going way overboard. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 07:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I think that recommendation was based not just on the user's userpage content, but on his refusal to remove the offensive material. He has removed several messages about the content from his talk page without responding to them, and with edit summaries like . I agree that an indef block might be a bit harsh when the user has never been blocked before and has made constructive contributions, but this is about more than ''just'' userpage content. -- ] | ] 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Get some perspective. It looks like all the complaints really are about "just userpage content". There have been admins and would-be admins who have posted their disdain for Christians on their user pages and elsewhere. I do not share this guy's views, but they are his business and well within the range of statements to be found on userpages. I, for one, consider the tolerance here for the posterior orifice who professed his admiration for Osama bin Laden infinitely more offensive than this (yes, the ''tolerance'' expressed here for it, not just the box itself). Lots of people have alternate accounts: as long as they are not used in the same conversations they are not sockpuppets and not against policy. Not everyone in the world is "politically correct" and you need to deal with it when it creates a problem in articles, not just its existence on userpages. ] 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, his name is Dwain. He chose the username Pitchka, and then discovered that it meant something offensive in some other language. He didn't want to abandon the account, so he created the account Dwain. (If that's not exactly how it was, it's still fairly close, I think.) Yes, he has things on his user page that are confrontational. I don't endorse them, but I don't find them any more offensive than some of the things that other users have posted on Misplaced Pages about Christians. As for blocking him, that's absurd. He's a good-faith editor, who sometimes gets annoyed when people are trolling and harassing him. A few months ago, he removed a message or some messages from his talk page &mdash; something which is ''not'' forbidden by policy, and which many administrators do &mdash; and within hours, users were descending on him, reverting, sending him template warnings about vandalism, and making him even more annoyed. I've seen numerous insults aimed at Christians here on Misplaced Pages, and I have never even ''considered'' blocking the users. I think we need to move from an "I'm-not-going-to-let-him-get-away-with-it" mentality to one of "it's-not-urgent-to-get-rid-of-it-and-I-don't-want-to-make-matters-worse." I would suggest that someone who hasn't already been hassling him might suggest ''nicely'' that it would be better not to have those quotations since they might offend some people. ] ] 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I completely agree. During the userbox wars, it was flat out verboten to have polemical attack user boxes, be they anti Christian or anti anything else. Listing a number of people for whom you have distaste (based on their associations) and then accusing them of trying to prevent verifiable information from being added to wikipedia is assuming bad faith. Repeatedly referring to those who have attempted to discuss the polemics as being devil worshipping vandals is BEYOND overbaord, and shows that the editor is more concerned with disruption and insults that what is or isn't encyclopedic.--] 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::And that my friends is grounds for an indefinite ban. Such behavior is completely unacceptable and given the fact that Dwain is unrepetent, I believe his time here is done. ] 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I do have to wonder if that's a good idea in this situation, as historical precedence rarely favors indef'ing users in such instances. Also, Mirror, I find the fact that you're a new user who immediately jumped into administrative level action, and who has the words "free timecop" (a known GNAA troll who's offline stalking an admin of ours) on his userpage, to be rather suspicious. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you're blind to your own stupidity here sir, incase you haven't noticed, ] is pointing out exactly same reasons I was blocked for. Offensive userpage is definitely a reason for a indef block, please contact ] immediately to carry it out. Peace out, niggas. --] 11:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (timecop, lol @ wikipedia, trolled for life)
::::You guys are sure on the ball with the blocks. You know, ] address space isn't all that big. You keep blocking valid contributors to your shittypedia, and soon the only people editing it will be ] ] with a ] lol. --] 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:The only real issue I see here is that he still edits from ] and as I said above, one of his two accounts should be locked from editing because there is no valid reason for him to have 2 active accounts. Other than that I have to agree I don't think an indef ban of the user is even close to warrented here.--] 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== User Vml675 ==
Could another admin please review and intervene in a situation regarding ] (now mainly editing as {{user|Circustop}}) and his or her ]. Despite numerous warnings, the editor consistantly removes sourced content , to suit a pro-POV and introduce copyright material to ] using a number of accounts . There is also the recent development of accusatory edit summaries . As the only other major editor to the article that all the socks edit almost exclusively, I do not wish to use admin tools personally. Thanks. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say file a checkuser, then all socks and the master account can be blocked cleanly, even by you. | ] <small>]</small> 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|Nadirali}}, {{user|Hkelkar}}, et, al. ==

(Pakistani user) {{user|Nadirali}} has been repeatedly warned for his incivility and personal attacks. I a {{t1|npa4}} warning to his talk page yesterday after the complaints here at ], as well as {{user|Ragib}}'s suggesting that he cool things down. After further incivility and personal attacks (see additional warnings on his talk page), and particularly , I blocked him for forty-eight hours.

Similarly, (Indian user) {{user|Hkelkar}} has been engaging in similar conduct, particularly on ]. After he posted an extensive comment to ] Pakistan's misdeeds, I him of his incivility again. He subsequently an "apology" on my talk page in which he calls {{user|Nadirali}} a "Pakistani nationalist" with "jingoist historical revisionism and blatant propaganda", mocking him with the use of the term ] (an often derogatory term to describe non-Muslims from a Muslim point-of-view). As a result, I blocked him for forty-eight hours, as well.

So, I'm seeking confirmation (or whatever the antonym of confirmation is) for these actions. -- ''']''' 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:Note also the other provocative statements on ] from other users. I have warned a couple of them about their incivility, but things certainly do look heated. I can't even tell if they're discussing the article. -- ''']''' 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::A balanced application of ] was merited here. ] looks to be heading for a year's ban pending confirmation of a motion to close the RfArb he's currently a part of so this 48 hours may be an early application of this proposed ArbCom decision. Unfortunately in the Wiki areas of Religion/Politics/Race its been my experience that this type of incivility is all too common. ''(]])'' 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::: I support your actions. Though they may ''feel'' victimised, such behaviour not being uncommon on the talkpage, it does not excuse their disregard for basic policy. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I think that {{user|Nadirali}} had a few run-ins with {{user|Kumaranator}} as well. May want to check into that. Netscott is right about "civility", as long as the users aren't obvious newbies, no one even pretends to be civil. Its much too easy for users to make false accusations, insinuations, and sink into ].<b>]]</b> 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, Hkelkar's gone for a year per ArbCom. '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

please warn him, again. He keeps changig my userboxes constantly. He already was warned, but he doesnt stop.--] 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Warned with test4. | ] <small>]</small> 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::He responded to me with this: ''Hiya, thanks for the 'last warning'. Upon looking over you're talk page you seem to be a pretty poor administrator. By the time you've read this, I will have fixed Tresckow's user page again. I do believe a blocking is in order. Cheerio; you're a complete and utter dick.'' And since he vandalized Tresckow's page again, I blocked him 48h for vandalism and personal attacks. | ] <small>]</small> 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Article J. Edward Anderson created by Ken Avidor ==
*{{article|J. Edward Anderson}}
Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. ] 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Would this not be a case for ]? ]<sup>]|]</sup> 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::You are the expert. Misplaced Pages internals are labyrinthine to me. ] 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

* Notability is borderline but there are fans of Anderson's also active on the article. I note that the PRT disputants are once again bringing their battles to Misplaced Pages, what joy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::Fans of Anderson? Laughable! Anyone who doesn't quote the Avidor party line is nothing but a drooling "fan" to you. You will ''never'' get it, JzG. ]

:TO be clear, I dont' know anything about PRT. I'm fine with deleting the whole thing. I'm only active on it inasmuch as I found it through my watch of AN/I, and thought it'd be interesting to really clean up and rehab a lousy POV filled article. Avidor continues to add to the article with loaded words, but I've AGF'd and asked him to be careful in the future. My only interest is in editing a bad article into good, not in supporting or opposing PRT. I'm a jersey driver. I can't shoot the bird from PRT, so what do I care about it? ] 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::ThuranX, a year ago, I didn't know the first thing about PRT, but because I got involved and tried to correct blatant POV pushing on the PRT article, I'm now portrayed as a mindless drooling proponent. Don't be surprised if you get the same treatment... ] 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::That's why I liberally delete idiocy off my user talk. I don't really worry about it. And I don't care about PRT, won't care about PRT, and given how voliatile it is, I doubt I'll do much more editing if this survives it's AfD nom. ] 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Politically motivated edits and vandalism ==

(moved from ] -- ]] 06:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC))
Could a few admins please take a look at the history edits of admin. ] and ] a.k.a.] I have been watching these users for sometime now (for reasons that I could let you know upon a private email) and both are just making a mockery of wikipedia for political purposes. User:Pm_shef a.k.a. User:Chabuk is the son of a politician and has been slandering and vandalising all of his fathers political competitors and opponents on wikipedia while at the same time building up in a POV style his political supporters. I don’t know whom admin. User:JamesTeterenko is other than being User:Pm_shef a.k.a. User:Chabuk sidekick and enforces his politically motivated edits and vandalism. When another user including admins. makes a positive and factually correct edit to any of these articles User:JamesTeterenko is right there reverting these and most of the time blocking them and/or labelling them as a sock puppet. If some admins could look into this and take the necessary action against these users that would be appreciated. I could also provide details if asked. --] 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked as a sockpuppet of Vaughan Watch, someone with a vendetta against Pm shef.—] (]) 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Repeated violation of WP: Living rules ==

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the ] entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). ] 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:I suggest you try ] instead (BTW, that story seems a bit silly to me anyway. Unless she was a subtanial beneficiery which seems unlikely, then I'm doubtful anyone would bother to go to the trouble and risk of killing someone. Even if she did have sex with him, at most I would say she didn't care if he died but it seems unlikely she was trying to cause him to die) ] 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet creating AfDs ==

New user, must be a sockpuppet with experience creating AfDs that appear to be retaliation against {{user|WarthogDemon}} --] 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Can you point us to one of the the AfDs? I have come across a user in a dispute with WarthogDemon recently, might be the same one. ]] 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::I do believe it's a sock puppet of ]. I have no experience with sockpuppets, but the user ] seems to be acting the same way. The account was created only an hour ago and almost immediately began putting up articles for deletion, including some of mine (and on those the user has made what appears to be personal attacks). The user also seems to be behaving just the same way as the former user did, (stalking my edits?) and has recently posted copyright work (which has just been deleted). I think this could be a sockpuppet, but since I am not sure and since I also don't want to get into a serious confrontation or a serious bout of bad faith, I'd rather you look it over since I believe you have a little familiarity with this situation. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> (Sorry; I simply copied/pasted from my talk with ArmadilloFromHell and I forgot that my signature wouldn't update itself...)
::Very sorry I left out the crucial info ==> {{user|MinervaSimpson}} --] 07:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Looks like a pretty obvious sockpuppet to me. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::And whom now has just put up a fourth article I have created as an AfD. -] 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::File a ] on him. This is clearly a sock - new users don't show up here and start filing AfDs with arguments about notability. I think the appropriate course of action is an indef-block and speedy-keep of bad-faith AfDs, but I'd like one point of more tangible evidence first. | ] <small>]</small> 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
* The obvious is never a problem: I blocked MinervaSimpson as a transparently obvious sock. But I did not delete or speedy close the AfDs because whether or not they were victimisation, all have attracted several valid !votes from other editors. I even !voted on one myself. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I closed them all (five in total) as bad-faith nominations. Someone can renominate in good faith if they'd like, but I don't like seeing articles deleted because of who authored them. | ] <small>]</small> 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== User labelling his own sockpuppets ==

Very strange, but {{user|Insineratehymn}} seems to be identifying his own sockpuppets - or maybe it's all a hoax. --] 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I haven't looked at the specifics yet, but.... Points for honesty? ''';)'''

:If he/she/they openly link the various IDs to each other, and avoid using them on the same topics or voting on the same issues, then as I understand it these become no longer "sockpuppets" but merely "alternate IDs". <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''10:23, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>

:Yep, he says he's "fessing up to sockpuppets":
:*<small> 06:34, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Fatalism, lol ''(←Created page with `{<s></s>{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`)'' (top)</small>
:*<small> 06:34, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Imheadingtothepark ''(←Created page with `{<s></s>{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`)'' (top)</small>
:*<small> 06:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:ScoutMasterLumpas ''(←Created page with `{<s></s>{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`)'' (top)</small>
:*<small> 06:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:CampKidney ''(←Created page with `{<s></s>{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)''</small>
:*<small> 06:31, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Gokonozo ''(Fessing up to my sockpuppets)'' (top)</small>
:*<small> 06:28, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Insineratehymn (top)</small>
:I don't think the "''suspected'' sockpuppet" template quite describes what should be a "''confessed'' sockpuppet". If there's an approved template for openly declaring an alternate ID, maybe that should be suggested to him &ndash; along with guidelines for use or non-use. But it does look like he's trying to come clean, so that should be taken into account. <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''10:45, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>

::Although this may verge on being an assumption of bad faith, maybe it'd be good to get confirmation that they are actually socks of him/her, and not just some reandom users who he is tagging to be annoying. The perfect way is to get him/her to log in to each of them and post a dummy edit confirming what he/she's doing. Thoughts? '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 10:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I'll suggest it to him. And I think the approved method is to have redirects on all the secondary IDs' user/talk pages to his primary's, with a list of those IDs on his primary's pages. Yes, surely each ID should login to edit its own pages, as confirmation. Thanks! <small>&ndash; ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''11:04, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small>
:As long as he avoids using them on the same topics or voting on the same issues, there is nothing wrong with this. There are several good reasons someone might want to do this. ] 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

It might be nice to note that Cool Cat has been in an unending violation of ] as of late, and what's more, he makes several of his own personal attacks in the nomination. Could someone please take a look at this and consider some kind of ban? He's surely knows this won't pass, and even his own reasoning says, "I'm tired of incivility, so I nominated this", which is exactly the opposite of the correct reasoning (unless it's a POINT violation, of course). I'm not sure he's not looking to try to get banned, so maybe a longer ban would do. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:No idea on Cool Cat- I leave this to others who know the situation. Closed the Mfd. ] ] 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:: I already had brought this up ]. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 08:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I've never seen someone try so hard to get himself blocked for a POINT violation. He formally requested to be indef'ed. If he's trying this hard to get banned, maybe we could use a nice wikibreak to help him get his wits about him and start contributing right. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I should think that if there was any doubt about Cool Cat's behavior before, by now it is clarified....he's been completely out of line. ] ] ] 09:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I was reading ] for the first time this morning and laughed out loud when I saw so many '''''don't'''''s fitting him like a glove! I've been on the far periphery of only a small fraction of the ill will and disruption he has perpetrated and, even at a distance, and as a mildly interested nonparticipant observer, I feel the whiplash effects.

:Anyone sensing that <s>(un)</s>Cool Cat has been striving to make a mockery of a system which won't reliably serve his whims on demand is rather perceptive. I am among those who view with disfavour, as well, the lengths to which Bastique has gone to cater to and enable his impulses and tantrums.
::: Doesn't jsutify personal attacks against him. Struck. ] ] ] 06:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:What he has been doing is not justifiable. He should have at least a week to a month off, minimum. ] ] 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::I gave him a week-long block, with what I hope is a . Please review. ]]] 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Endorsed - not that I count as an impartial reviewer. ] 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Should be longer (2-4 weeks) in my opinion, based on his block log and repeated nature of the violations: questionable RfC, trolling ANI, absurd MfD. ] 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Child's details ==

I have heard a few rumblings about this in the past so I thought I'd better post it here. A user, ] has posted his personal details on his user page and also uploaded an image of himself ]. As he states he is in 4th grade that would make him around 10 years old (if my research is correct) - that would also mean that his username could contain his D.O.B? What is the normal course of action for this? Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:His DOB is in his username: he's also put it in a userbox on his page. ] (Have a nice day!) 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::His DOB would be 4197, so not in his username. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">]</font>''<small><font color="#BA0000">]</font></small>''' 12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Cute kid. One would assume that he has had a parent or guardian's help uploading/editing. Might be advisable to leave a notice on his talk page with the leader "For your mum or dad - please show them and ask them to respond" or similar. We could then warn them of the pitfalls of having a childs details on wiki. However if it is being released with his parents permission then I'm not too sure that it is wiki's problem. ]] 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed, however it might be a better idea for someone else to do it as it is looking a little like I am attacking everything about his edits at the moment and I am feeling uneasy about that. Could someone else post the message please? Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I deleted the potentially insecure details. ] 12:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:] should provide guidance on what to do ] 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you El C and Nil Einne. That was very helpful. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe I've been in migraineland too long to ], but doesn't it strike anyone as odd that this person's birthday is ]? ] 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Honestly, no. Given how large we have become, I would not be surprised if everyday, one of our editors will celebrate a birthday. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Legal threat? ==

{{user5|195.229.241.180}} left a message at ]: . He/she said a.o. "The Regulatory Authority REQUIRES that internet connections go through the telecom providers proxy filter, so we have no legal choice in the matter." Does this constitute a legal threat or not? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 14:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't really see how that is threatening. --] (] - ]) 14:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Capslockedly saying that something "requires" a certain action, followed by the conclusion that "we have no legal choice in the matter" leads to the question: no legal choice but to do what? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::There is no threat here. The person is simply saying that in the UAE all internet traffic is required by their law to go through their internal proxies. They are explaining that by blocking UAE IP addresses as open proxies we are blocking significant portions of the country's population from being able to edit due to their requirement to use the proxies.-]<sup>]</sup> 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Users in the UAE have no choice but to use that proxy. It's not like AOL where you can always get a better ISP - all their traffic goes out through government controlled proxies, all the better for blocking objectional material like porno and freedom. -- ] | ] 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes this is clearly not intended as a threat. If for example, they were saying, we have no choice so we'll sue you for violating our rights, that obviously would be a threat. But in this case, it's just an explaination ] 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::NB, wil AOL you don't have to change ISP. There are various ways to use AOL, even before the XMM headers was introduced ] 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] = ]? ==

I just spotted , which has an entirely dishonest edit summary, and got to looking at the user's contributions which showed apparent connection to a banned user. Not sure if this is where the report belongs? Cheers! -- ] | ] 14:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Given the contribs from that anon, I don't see enough evidence to determine if this is the banned user or not. You could file a ] request to see if the IP addresses match. In the meantime, I've placed a {{tl|spam-n}} warning on that anon user's talk page. As long as it's just one silly edit every few days, I don't think any admin intervention is required. | ] <small>]</small> 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I beleive {{user|Cyber Lopez Lt}} is a sockpuppet of {{user|Cyber Lopez Rt}} being used to evade a . Cyber Lopez Lt began editing the day after Cyber Lopez Rt was blocked, and in addition to the similar user name, has similar edits such as adding his own barnstars (, ) and editing ]. Also may be affiliated with blocked user {{user|Cyber Lopez}}, whom I just noticed also edited ]. Thanks. ] 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see {{user|Cyber Lopez Sr}}, {{user|Cyber Lopez Jr}}, and {{user|Cyber Lopez Ab}} as well. ] 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I'm just going to permablock all of these as sockpuppets and essentially vandalism-only accounts. Any who disagree? ] 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

==Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond==
At the recommendation of admin ], I'm asking on behalf of ], ], other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, ], over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in ]. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics ], he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at ]. There ''had'' been much more criticism of his edits at ] &mdash; with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of ] and other articles &mdash; ''but he erases all comments.''

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version . Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History , , and , other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Misplaced Pages articles. Thank you so much for any help. --] 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sometimes he responds. It's sporadic. Sometimes he takes a lesson to heart when it's explained in great detail. Sometimes. And sometimes he just repeatedly blows off style guidelines no matter how many people disagree with him. I first got drawn into his mess because someone else in WikiProject Comics begged for people to come take a peek and try to help find a way to resolve Asgardian's relentless edit wars over the Thor articles. At that point, he'd only been at it for a month. I think it's been three months now, fighting the same edit wars. See how he stubbornly insists on reverting ] to tightly in-universe perspective. One night I spent hours trying to edit his version bit by bit to give him a chance, then he just redid all the same mistakes and guideline violations. It wears you out. So many of us got so tired so long ago of fixing his edits that we just can't devote the energy to selectively keeping his good edits when he makes so many bad ones, therefore a lot of people have to revert articles even when it means reinserting some problems he'd fixed because he did more damage than good. Several of us repeatedly advised him to make one edit at a time so he could learn from each. It's just bizarre. There are now at least two competing versions getting edited, bouncing back and forth for almost every article he keeps hitting. He has some good information. He makes some good edits. He's just so amazingly stubborn.

:He got warned about 3RR. He got blocked for violating 3RR. I saw other times I could have reported him for violating 3RR after that, but chose not to because I really was trying to find a way to work with this intelligent, knowledgeable person despite how aggravating it could be. He deleted WikiProject Comics notices about his edit wars until I warned him very strongly that to do so was deceptive when he knew darn well that edit wars were going on. Lately he hasn't been as overtly contentious. Lately he simply hasn't been replying to people as often. Admittedly, a lot of us have given up on explaining all of our fixes to his edits when we've already offered the same explanations repeatedly. I still think there's hope for him. I really do, based on the times he has learned lessons, but after this much time, I question whether he's worth the effort because he creates so much work for so many people voluntarily helping edit Misplaced Pages articles. ] 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Summary:
:*He is willfully lowering the quality of Misplaced Pages articles.
:*He is fully aware that his edits are contrary to various policies and guidelines.
:*He isn't responding (well, severely unresponsive) to light methods of behavior correction.
:He's doing no good and shows an obvious disinterest in collaborative efforts. Block him for a month; hopefully that will make him realize that, hey, we're here to ''improve'' articles ''together'', not single-handedly make them shit. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::I stumbled across this user's edit war with Covenant D over the ''Thor'' comics articles about two months ago. Sadly, since that time, I have seen little progress, only regression. The edit war still continues and has expanded to other comics articles. I reported the disputed articles on the WikiComics Project notice board in order to get more people involved and, ideally, settle the dispute. However, rather than trying to work toward consensus, he erased my notice. I know that we have to assume good faith, but actions like this strain credulity. Nonetheless, I have tried to work out compromises by changing problem sections within disputed articles in a piecemeal fashion, rather than a wholesale reversion. Initially, this seemed to be effective, but things eventually degenerated back into blind edit warring with little to no discussion. Occasionally, he will justify his edits on an article's talk page, but he is more likely to ignore or erase requests for discussion. When he does comment on talk pages, he is frequently incivil and more than a little combative. Sadly, he actually makes some valid points in his arguements, but they are all but lost in the edit wars he provokes. Like Doczilla, I, too, had hope for Asgardian. But that hope is fading. --] 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Sorry to bother everyone, but I wanted to inform the admins of what has been occurring here. ] and ] have been in a disagreement over Messianic Judaism. While both are entitled to their opinion, ] has remained calm and mature about this while ] feels the need to belittle ]. This disagreement has been quiet for about a week as ] has not been editing since then, but ] felt that he needed to stir the pot a bit and state today: "Keep us posted on any other special messages Hashem sends you, while here on Earth all the other good Jews wait for the real Jewish Messiah to show up. IZAK 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Personally I find ]'s behavior immature and childish. He has a history of being uncivil when someone disagrees with him. I am a complete outsider in this except that I have emailed ] about 2 weeks ago just to say to keep his chin up in all this. My issue here is that I have seen countless times on here that when people disagree, instead of doing it the right way, it leads to childish and immature behavior. Shouldn't we leave the games to the kids? Anyway, thank you for your time. ] 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Religious propaganda of ], as exemplified in the section you qouted, has absolutely no place in wikipedia. We are here to edit encyclopedia, not to provide "this frontline position for Messianic Judaism". Also, his claim "I am stepping down as project leader ''at the immediate direction of the Lord himself''" makes me question either his sanity or neutrality: I would certainly strongly object to have editors here who in their editing are guided by some foreign God rather than by rules of wikipedia. Not to say that we have ] to guide and direct us. :-) `'] 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Mikkalai, ]'s sanity is not the issue here. It is ]'s immaturity and blatant attack on ]. I could care less as to who thinks who is under the direction of the Lord, but immaturity such as IZAK's "has absolutely no place in wikipedia" either. Thank you. ] 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::: I support mikkalai's assessment. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Complex AfD raising potential trademark or legal issues ==

Please see ]. This situation involves allegations that several Misplaced Pages articles are in violation of trademark rights involving two software projects in Australia with similar names. The dispute appears to go beyond the scope of a traditional AfD discussion and could benefit from review by admins. ] 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:] violation, no? | ] <small>]</small> 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::I was just going to say, it looks like that's the case. ] <small>]</small> 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Well, the situation is confusing (someone in Australia might have an easier time figuring out who the players are), but I think that User:Stswp is commenting to the effect that ''someone else'' might take legal action, not making a legal threat of his own. ] 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

] has recommended deletion for all 3 articles until the legal situation is resolved, a suggestion I heartily concur with. While ] has adopted a rather confrontational and imperious manner, I don't think he's yet crossed the line into legal threats. It's a close thing though, and he might go over at any moment...] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal battles are irrelevant here. Even if some of these companies will be banned from using this name, we will still have legal rigths to write "formerly known as..." or "erroneously known as...", or else. And of course, this is an absolutely invalid reason for deletion, but a reason to write these articles very carefully. `'] 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't really grok the rambling legalese on this AfD. And I'm not sure we should pay any attention to it until any contention of trademark infringement on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation or of any Misplaced Pages user is presented in a more coherent fashion by someone actually representing one of the parties in this apparent dispute. Meanwhile, we should just go on with the AfDs, delete ] and ] as failing ]/] and forget about it for now. ] 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] - this section moved here from ] ==

{{vandal|Andries}}: Andries is a self-professed critic of Sathya Sai Baba and said he will continue to revert the ] article despite specifically being warned by Admin to stop . Since the time of Admin's warning, he included the link in defiance of Admin and the ] 4 times, 3 times today so far. See: . I have placed 4 warnings on his talk page. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Following the same way of reasoning linking to the homepage of ] in that article is a violation of ] because it is defamatory of ]. Clearly that is exaggerated. ] 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Content pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba is governed by an ArbCom ruling. Therefore, the ArbCom ruling trumps arguments made on other pages that are not governed by an ArbCom ruling. You have been warned by admin about this and you continue to defy Admin and the ArbCom Ruling and you have no intention on stopping. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I also complained at the ] ] 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Propaganda" trolls back ==

Looks like the nice folks involved in the "White House Propaganda" thing are still at it; I just from the Village Pump (News), which was added within about three edits of it being unprotected. Haven't investigated further yet, but be on the lookout. ] <small>]</small> 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:Again? ...sigh...] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Ugh. Again. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

See ]. I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it looks like an incensed user (Brian.Burnell) has possibly contacted the president of another user's (]) university, seeking to force the latter's expulsion over a dispute over what looks to be ... image tagging over a satirical map. Certainly a ridiculous situation that needs to be defused. &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Off-wiki harassment of this nature is totally unacceptable user conduct demanding immediate action. At a minimum, the user must be strongly reminded of the policy forbidding off-wiki harassment and a promise elicited that such action will not be repeated. In the absence of such a promise, this user should not be welcome to continue editing. ] 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I left this message on his talk page:
::<blockquote>You left the following message on ]: ''What there appears to be though is a campaign of harrassment and blatant, demonstrable lies, possibly mounted partly from the IP addresses and the computers of the University of Göttingen. The President of the University, Prof Dr Kurt von Figura, has been contacted, and I understand that inquiries are to be made to establish the truth.'' This is an extremely serious violation of Misplaced Pages policies. Off-wiki harassment of other users is strictly forbidden under the ] policy. As a first step, I'd like to see you apologize to ] for your actions. | ] <small>]</small> 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I thought post-apology, we could consider next steps. No apology = long block, possibly turning it over to ArbCom for banning. Apology = a workout plan. I'd like to think that this user was just being a blowhard, and hasn't actually contacted anyone. | ] <small>]</small> 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::: And I reminded him that it is not acceptable to reveal person information about other editors. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::] has returned, but only to remove all warnings from his userpage. Still no answer to the question about his conduct. I would like to hear some other opinions on when and whether a block is appropriate, or if this is something I should be turning over to ArbCom. | ] <small>]</small> 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: Tricky one (which is why I waited for another admin to take the initiative ;). Since the off-wiki damage is already done (or not, if he is all talk and no action), I would suggest another stern warning detailing the action that ''will'' be taken should he not engage. If that doesn't focus his mind then I would propose moving for a ban. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Brian's actions are indefensible. Bullying of this nature, revealing personal information and threatening to get a user kicked out of their university is appalling and should be met with zero tolerance. He should be banned, immediately, and permanently. He is clearly unwilling to engage in any kind of resolution amicably (considering the multiple removals of all the warnings about what he did), and I'm happy to see him gone. Any objections? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 11:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Definitely an immediate indef block and community ban, no further questions asked. Mind you, there's no chance he would ever succeed with his threats; German universities don't keep tight disciplinary watch over their students and would never dream of intervening against a student in such a case. But the intention alone of harming the other guy is what matters. ] ] 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:(deindent) I have blocked ] indefinitely for the above (, to be exact). If anyone objects, please feel free to amend this ban. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Bad username ==

* 20:11, 10 December 2006 Lukasadmin (Talk | contribs) (New user account)

] states that a username ''' 'that impl an official role or a role greater than that of a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator"' ''' is forbidden.

Cheers, ]'']'' 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Dealt with. ]] 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== User:VirtualEye's suden scomment stream. ==

I am concerned about these comments of {{userlinks|VirtualEye}}'s:
*
*
*
Neither me nor ] are involved with ] in any significant way (I corrected a link, he reverted vandalism), and it seems we are intent on remaining so. VirtualEye comments (and general attitudes) are definitely worrying me, though. ] 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Yes I was thinking that this user's message could be cause for concern as well. So far though there's nothing that would appear to need adminstrator intervention as this user has yet to be disruptive (as far as I can tell). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== Joel on the SOL edit warring over a rating. ==

I recently added the LGBT WikiProject tag to ] and rated it a B-class. Shortly afterwards, I got a short but blunt note from an IP that my rating was unacceptable and had been taken down. Since then, ] has repeatedly insulted me, questioned my ability as an editor, made numerous personal attacks and has repeatedly removed the grading(very close to breaking 3RR). Admittedly, I lost my temper at first, but despite my attempts to bring him back to what is actually wrong with the rating, he insists of going off about how utterly unqualified I am to rate articles and that I am a deeply unpleasant user. Regardless of whether that is true or not, I fail to see how this has any bearing on a rating that has been supported by everyone but Joel. Some blocking/warning/input would be nice, because he's taking up both mine and Jeff's time on this deeply stupid dispute, that he won't even address. Argument taking place on ], ], ], and of course, ] itself. I think it's simply a case of one user steadily winding himself up about his baby getting what he sees as a low rating, but if an admin could do something about this, I'd be grateful. ] (Have a nice day!) 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:I put a note on that user's talk page, asking him to moderate his tone, and warning him again about 3RR. I would encourage you to file a 3RR report if he does it again, and to restore the B rating given the absence of any content-related discussion (as I read that talk page, Joel isn't so much disputing the rating itself as he is refusing to rate the article at all - is that accurate?). | ] <small>]</small>
::Yes, that appears to be what's happening. Thanks for your warning. I'd restore it once more, but I think I'm close to 3RR myself, I'll ask someone else to do it just in case. ] (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's accurate. Joel is angry that the article was not rated higher, and is unwilling to discuss his reasons for thinking it should be higher. He ignores all explanations of the GA process, and that "B"is as high as an assessed rating can get (well "A" is possible, in theory, but that is a higher rating than GA and this is not even at GA yet). He states that if it is not rated higher, it may not be rated at all. I will change the rating myself now.] 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Per Talk on this article, there were by Jeffpw's own count three reverts by Joel on the SOL - that does not place anyone over the 3RR limit and now that makes two of you who owe him an apology! ] 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::That would be assuming that you and Joel are not one and the same, of course. Because you also reverted. In any event, I am sure if an admin is interested, he or she can go into the history and see exactly just how many reverts were made, and by whom. ] 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::This anonymous user is almost certainly a sock of ]. See ]; the user has contributed to seven separate articles (excluding AN/I), and Joel on the SOL has edited five of those, with several edits from each user to the talk page under dispute. Regardless, a 3RR warning was issued; if Joel on the SOL violates it again, alone or by using his sock, he'll be subject to a block. | ] <small>]</small> 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Joel, there is this thing called ], which will allow us to determine (if necessary) what IPs you edit from. Personally, I would have already blocked you for a 3RR violation, as it is obvious. And, should you persist in this battle you may be blocked for less than 4 reverts, because 3RR merely extablishes a clear line, it does not entitle you to edit war up to 3 reverts per day. If you persist in edit warring '''and''' continue to deny the obvious, I'll be happy to apply for a checkuser request and drop a much longer block on you after the result comes back. Try a peer review to see how to improve the article, and remember that no one ] any article here. ] 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
*Has the anonymous editor been userchecked? I ask because ] placed a sockpuppet template on his userpage, and the anon IP removed it, calling the template drivel in his edit summary. This while continuing to sow the seeds of dissension on the ] page. ] 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Ugh, I thought we had moved along already. The anon user has admitted to being a meatpuppet of Joel on the SOL - or, if he's lying, it's just Joel himself. Either way, if those two users are working in concert to avoid violating 3RR or to otherwise influence the editing of that article, they should be blocked. I've also noted on the anon's talk page that he must not remove the template, with a fuller explanation of why it's appropriate. | ] <small>]</small> 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Vanessa Minnillo Board ==

I've been trying to get an editor over to the Vanessa Minnillo board to help with a dispute. In the most recent article of Maxim magazine, Vanessa Minnillo stated she was white and polynesian. People at her board are insistent on saying she is in fact filipino attaching it to sources that have never been identified as reliable. According to the rules of wikipedia, because the interview has proved to be the best source and is the most recent article with Vanessa's actual testements, it makes no sense why they are trying to force her as filipino. ] 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:''Moved from ].'' ''']]''' 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] - possible sock puppeting? ==

I'm beginning to suspect that ], ], ], and ] are all the same person. I may be wrong, but all of them focus on the same small set of articles related to the Romanian royal family, and all seem to share an identical POV which I would have thought quite idiosyncratic - anti-communist and anti-monarchist. Both Stefan and Parisian have cited Misplaced Pages's "undue weight" policy in a rather odd way to justify putting (what is, in my opinion) undue weight on their idiosyncratic POV. So if anyone could check and see if they're all the same person, that'd be nice. Also, if anyone would like to more generally intervene, that'd be good to know. ] 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

: User ], in the name of his , keeps vandalizing the ] article. He keeps: 1. eliminating referenced statements, using unacceptable sources (so-called emails, which we all know can be forged) (see, for instance, the to the article, : "Tom Gallagher most certainly did not say that any such offer was actually made, '''as he clarified in an email to a wikipedian'''") ; 2. re-inserting , claiming that the article has too many anti-King Michael edits/"POVs", in utter disregard of the NPOV-Undue Weight policy (see the reasons explained in ]); 3. , which runs counter to his minority pro-Michael views. Please, stop his vandalisms and abusive edits, which try to aggresively impose the minority view on King Michael. Thank you! ] 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the chance that John Kenney, a longstanding and excellent contributor who has shown only a moderate interest ever in Romanian matters, is very unlikely to be vandalising here.

I will cross-post this to the ] in order to try to get a larger number of knowledgable people to keep an eye on the article. - ] | ] 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

: Being an avowed monarchist, as ] clearly show, could make an otherwise excellent editor and even administrator, like John Kenney, disregard the Misplaced Pages rules in order to defend the honor of a fallen and contested monarch. ] 05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not a monarchist. I find monarchy and royal genealogy ''interesting'', but I don't see how that makes me a monarchist. ] 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Come off it John, interest in such a reactionary field is proof positive of your monarchical tendencies&ndash;you can't fool me!--] 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a sockpuppeter. Stefanp, however, is. In addition to the puppets John has named we must also add {{user0|MihutM}}. All of these are blocked indefinitely now. I've left Stefanp unblocked for the time being. Thanks for playing, ] ] 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== A coincidence ? ==

Today I noticed that someone had posted a PROD tag on an article that I have contributed to. Clicking through to see who pasted it and then seeing this persons contributions revealed that the person registered a few days back and their '''only''' contributions are nominations for deletion of articles that I have been contributing to. Have a look: ]. Now I'm not sure what's going on and what to do. Can anyone help? ] 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:* Excuse me, but I am not "targetting" you. I explained that 1) I have previously edited anonymously 2) Found your article via '''Random article''' and 3) Found your other articles via your list on you user page. I have merely followed the correct procedure for listing articles which I believe cover non-notable people or groups (which, by the way, you seem to be directly involved with).
::* When I had earlier explained that I had found your articles from your user page, you then proceeded to directly remove them . A strange thing to do, perhaps you could explain why. Were you trying to make me look like a liar? You seem to have immediately assumed bad faith, by raising my contributions rather than arguing your case .
:::* Furthermore you have now changed you initial accusatory heading to one that is . ] 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:I've indef-blocked ] as a disruption-only account. User's only edits are to tag WietsE's articles for deletion. | ] <small>]</small> 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

The second line of this userpage looks to me like a threat. Should I (or anyone else willing to do so) go ahead and remove it? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:The part about "no longer uses Misplaced Pages" is garbage, as there was more vandalism after it was put there. User's been temp blocked and the User Talk page (where s/he was trying to use the same tactic to eliminate warning messages) has been protected. Block will be up in a few hours and we'll see for how long. ] 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::The threat should go, of course.
::Beyond that, though, I thought there was kind of a consensus against blocking and page-protecting for "removing warnings" as the warnings are available in the page history. Not sure if that applies when vandalism is still ongoing, though.
::While we're on the subject of this editor, is "West wikipedia" an acceptable username given that names implying official connection with the project are barred by the username policy? ] 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I wasn't aware there was a consensus abour removing warnings. Could you please point me to where it is? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I've seen seemingly dozens of discussions on this issue, and the weight of opinion has been against blocking just for removing warnings. Having just looked at the centralized discussion again, "consensus" may have been too strong a word. Any thoughts on the username?

:I have removed the offending line from the person's User page. ]|] 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. The account name is clearly inappropriate (remember, Misplaced Pages is a copyright of the Wikimedia Foundation), and besides, it just isn't on the level for that guy to be claiming one's account will be deleted for reverting his edits. --] 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Now I suggest that his talkpage can be replaced with the username blocked template, which will moot the other issue. (Technicality: "trademark", not "copyright.") ] 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== My talk page ] ==

Can something please be done about the over-zealous editor who keeps reverting my page? Sadly I am unable to edit his talk page to discuss the matter with him, and he ignores the messages I leave on my talk page. This version gives a concise version of events, showing I was incorrectly warned. As such, I am perfectly entitled to remove that warning. Many thanks ] 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:{{IPvandal|81.155.178.248}} Has ben reported to ] for multiple removal of warnings, vandalism to his talk page--] 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and 3RR.

As far as I can tell, the IP user did not vandalize, hence blanking them was appropriate, although contentious. I have blanked the page to save everyone some grief. Move along, everybody... --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Agree, Resolved --] 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Overlooked thread? ==

It is suggested that ], above, should receive attention. ] 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:It is noted that the topic, above, has now received attention. :p ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user insulted user:jadger on jadger´s talk page: ''MeinGott, sind alle Pfälzer so doof wie Du? Peinlich, das alles'' "My god, are all people from the Palatinate as dumb as you? Embarassing, all of this"--] 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

: besides this he seems zto have messe around with this site: ] --] 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Warn, then, if user persists, report to ]. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This editor's userpage indicates that he has created his accounts for the purpose of "trolling and inciting drama." With a series of inquiries about the deletion of the ED pages, he appears to have started. Perhaps someone should have a word with him. ] 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
*Sounds like a candidate for speedy deletion. ] ] 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:*It could simply be a crap attempt at humour, and given the total inability of ED denizens to be funny it doesn't seem that suspicious. There are attempts at good faith edits at least from the account, so I don't feel a block is justified at this point. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*It's still a username policy violation, and should either be changed or blocked outright. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
**We might have a related user (]) whose user page I had to remove maybe seven fair use images from.—] (]) 08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Another overlooked thread? ==

It is suggested that ], above, should receive attention. ] 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Where did you get that awkward, stilted, horrible, passive-voice, weaselly phrasing? Oh, never mind. ] 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I find that situation very confusing. Deltabeignet seems to have attempted a breaching experiment of sorts, which certainly isn't cool. But then the accusations start getting weird--he is an impostor editing as himself in order to edit anonymously and then revert reversions of the anonymous edits which aren't really him anyway but someone else pretending to be him. . . ? ] 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Notenglish" vandal ==

Someone has been repeatedly creating throwaway accounts to systematically (and vandalistically) replace {{tl|notenglish}} with {{tl|db-notenglish}}. Then, of course, an admin comes along and innocently deletes the article. '''Please, when deleting articles so tagged,''' make sure that there really is already such an article in the relevant foreign language Misplaced Pages. Oh, and ideas for stopping this vandal are welcome. Further discussion is at ]. -- ] | ] 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Idea - create a new subcategory "Foreign language pages for speedy deletion," then change the db-notenglish template to place pages there as well. This would make policing that subcategory a lot easier. I wandered over to C:CSD, but they're all jumbled together, so picking the foreign-language ones out wasn't easy. | ] <small>]</small> 05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Which raises the question of whether it might be useful to have separate categories for other CSD criteria. I believe currently the only one singled out is {{tl|db-attack}}. -- ] 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I wholeheartedly support the idea of subcategorizing them. Different CSD criteria involve different research processes for the admin examining the CSD tag. I would think that the backlog would clear more quickly if admins felt 1) they could attack the specific CSD criteria they're comfortable investigating and 2) they could clear out a whole subcategory, something I find very satisfying :) | ] <small>]</small> 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

Well he's exhausting my patience. Can't speak for the community. He got his second 3RR violation in 4 days today (I haven't checked to see if he has been blocked yet for todays violation). . He's been blocked before for vandalism to that article, which is his only article-space entry he has edited( ). The only other edits he has are to AN/I regarding edit wars on that page, and to his own user/talk pages.

This is such a rampant case of repeated POV pushing and blatant disregard for policy, I believe administrative action is necessary.] ] ] 06:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: He's been reported at 3RR, and after being told he violated 3RR in the above diff, he's proceed to revert up to his 6th revert, and then filed a request for page protection on his version. I should note here that his reverts are removing multiple sourced materials that there is talk page consensus to include (his grounds for doing so are allegations that newsgroup postings, even those verified to be from the subject of the article and on a subject inherently notable to the topic at hand, are not reliable sources. There is considerable consensus on the article talk page that in this instance they meet all criteria for inclusion, especially given the notoriety of the subject for engaging in flame wars on usenet, to the point where ] did a comic on it and it became a notable web meme. It should be further noted that the link to the daily victim comic, and link to a less than flattering article on Opposable Thumbs at ] were also repeatedly removed by WarkHawkSP.)

At this point, I'm requesting a block on WarHawkSP for exhausting the community's patience. I find it ironic that his user page notes the "SP" as standing for "Sock puppet", when in this case it should be more like "single purpose".] ] ] 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:The user has been blocked for 48h by ]. Let us know if the behavior resumes - or, if it's just reverts, file a new case at ]. | ] <small>]</small> 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: He's removed the 4RR warning and another vandalism warning from his talk page. As I'm not sure what the current status on policy regarding removing warnings is, I won't re-add them, but he was notified of a 12hr block. I'm not sure exactly how long is left on it, I think around 6 hrs, but I believe it to be an insufficient cool off period, especially given the time it was issued (3am eastern time? Midnight pacific? He'll be asleep for that whole period). Seems to me if a 12 hour block were to be effective, it would need to start around 10am EST, which correlates to 1500 UTC, which should cover the most primetime editing periods, yet leave him sufficient time should he indeed decide to be constructive to do SOME editing between the hours of 10 and midnight eastern. ] ] ] 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::This user exhibits the same behavior as ], and as I wrote , for dispute resolution purposes as per a previous arbcom ruling ]''For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.'' It would not be that much of a stretch to put forth an article ban for this user as well as he is clearly a single purpose account with interest only in ]. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that as soon as he is blocked there are suddenly IP edits to the talk page (I didn't even check the page itself) attacking the editors who oppose WarHawkSP. This is ridiculous. ] ] ]
:Hi Jester. The IP address you are talking about is 209.214.22.231. This IP Address started making edits to the Derek Smart article after WarhawkSP was banned for violating ] originates from Fort Lauderdale, Florida with the hostname host-209-214-22-231.fll.bellsouth.net. There has long been suspicion that ] and ] were both Derek Smart's users, but this latest happen chance seems to confirm it.--] 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice wiki-detectiving. Derek Smart, as in the subject of the article, has offices based in Ft. Lauderdale, and as I've mentioned several times before, this is exactly the kind of behavior he is notorious for. ] ] ] 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

: Guys, despite the coincidence, I'd be surprised if this anon IP is the same user. That or the user is a good actor. His demeanor, post-first-edit, is not that of Warhawk. Just my opinion. Is a RfCU warranted? - (]) (]) (]) 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::It would be a pretty astonishing co-incidence. Warhawk gets blocked, and a drive-by user happens to stumble upon the article a few hours later and removes the exact same paragraph the blocked user was removing with similarly inflammatory edit summaries? This is the internet, you don't need to be a good actor. -- ] 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Take as well. This anon is not new to the Misplaced Pages, nor to the situation with Warhawk. -- ] <small>(])</small> 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Supreme Cmdr also edits from bellsouth out of florida - see . Supreme Cmdr has explicitly taken ownership of edits from that address - see the first edit under his user account. Warhawk also edits from Florida IPs when he 'forgets' to log in - see or even better . This is in the public logs so I don't think it should run afoul of any privacy policies, but feel free to blank this comment if I'm misunderstanding that. ] 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::As mentioned before, Derek Smart's screen name is Supreme Cmdr (across the internet, not necessarily here), and his offices are in Ft. Lauderdale, something that WarHawkSP has also tried to conceal by removing from the article. Seems pretty cut and dry all over the place to me. ] ] ] 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I think what hasn't been mentioned is that "both" Supreme Cmdr and Warhawk seem to have the fine art of "rules-lawyering" down pat. Either poster is quick to mention any and all relevant Wiki policies they can cling to in order to justify their edits and reverts. To be sure, this sort of person would also be aware of ], though they would never mention it. It would also explain why You-Know-Who will never fess up to being ] ''or'' ]. Or in other words, if Derek Smart ''were'' hypothetically editing his posts, because of his careful study of the rules, he knows that he would always have to appear to be someone who isn't Derek Smart or all of his changes could be dismissed and reverted. , he could never get involved (much less to it). More's the pity. ] 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This appears to be an account that is soley used for holocaust denial . For example, his first edit in ] is:

:"''How was this Jew allowed to live in Germany all through the war playing hockey in the time of the so called Holocaust?''"

The edit summary of his very next edit reads-

:"Another nail in the Holocaust myth?"

Many of his other edits consist of showing up at talk pages and making strange comments about discredited racial theories.- ] | ] 08:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Whatever disgusting his comments are, Admins' noteboard is not for witch hunt. Did he do any real harm to articles or trolled a talk? Not to say that his holocaust denial is very naive, and the simplest solution would be ]. `'] 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::I would think that a single purpose troll account would be blocked, he hasn't added anything to the encyclopedia so I don't see how the witch hunt allusion is applicable.- ] | ] 11:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== {{User|Catherine de Burgh}} ==

Seems to be a single purpose account used to troll (see contributions). Listing here in case the Lady's edits remind more established editors of similar past behavior by other problematic users. ] 10:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm, there is something familiar about it. Can't put my finger on it... well, I have some idea who it might be. I'll have a word. ] | ] 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
::So will I. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::And i'll be watching this, especially . -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 13:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::I suspect this has all been a joke between Bishonen and a few of her friends, tongues firmly in cheek on all sides. I mean, Bish's old joke topic of Baroque toilet-paper holders and all... ] ] 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::I am not sure whether it is part of ] or ]. Waiting for Bishonen's comment. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm trolling now? Actually I was thinking of the eminently serious and useful editor ]—Ann—who I suppose might like to let her hair down occasionally like everybody else. Ann seems to have a bit of an identification going with , a character in ]'s ]. At least, parts of are spoken in the character of Lady C. ] | ] 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
:::::::hmmmm. It was an assumption anyway. Thanks for the note. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::This edit is incredible ] 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If, at the next sign of article disruption, I block this account indefinitely for trolling, is someone going to whack me over the head with ]? Because my bullshit detector is in the . --]<sup>]</sup> 15:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:I certainly wouldn't.--] 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:As is mine, and with very, very good reason. ] ] 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:While I won't speak for idiots (who do a good job of doing so themselves), ''I'' certainly wouldn't. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::*I've just logged in and am horrified to note the response to Bishonen's and my edits at Renaissance architecture have been such a problem. I have to say after giving the matter a great deal of thought and consideration I have to say I think Catherine is correct to revert. I am now tending to side with the school of thought that considers it unlikely that the King of Spain, chose to adorn the external walls of his palace with toilet paper dispensers for the use of his servants. In fact they are more likely to be either mere Renaissance decoration or for the securing of goats. Regarding Palladio's design for the toilet paper holders at ] this is more complex, While those in the "Tourist Comfort Zone" are undoubtedly of high quality and aesthetically pleasing, the trade mark stamped on the reverse indicates ] a (Swedish company). Palladio is not known to have visited Sweden, or to have sold copyright to Ikea, this leads me to believe he is not responsible for their design. In conclusion I think Catherine was probably correct to revert. I shall now go and revert with a suitable summary. Thank you all for your interest in this matter. It's all most revealing, and indeed gratifying that so many are attuned to architecture ] 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Hmmm...OK I have no idea what's going on, so sorry if this was some sort of harmless in-joke. I certainly never said your edits or Bishonen's were a problem. I listed this here so that other, more established editors might be able to let me know what was going on with this user. I didn't have any ulterior motives... ] 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== User ] repeatedly uploading images with no source information ==

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. Sanghak has contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages, but keeps uploading images without specifying any source information. Most of them are copies of images from and , and few (if any) are original creations. He's been warned about this repeatedly on his ], but has never acknowledged or responded to these warnings. Now that his images are starting to disappear due to the lack of source information, he's started uploading them again (, ). I'm beginning to wonder if this user simply hasn't figured out how to access his talk page yet. I can't email him because his account settings won't allow it. Is there any other way of drawing this user's attention to the problem? -- ] ] 11:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
* Blocked 24h and a message left. Please report back if this does not do the trick. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Ban me! ==
This IP is from a school where nothing useful will come. I'm honestly ashamed of what they do to the Wiki. Nothing good will come of having this IP unbanned. If you don't believe me ]. The only useful edit is one where I forgot to log in. The last edit (of Bob Saget) uses my name even though I didn't edit it. If you could remove that edit too, I'd appreciate it (it's not that big a deal, just exceptionally stupid.) Thanks in advance for any action against this IP. -] 13:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:We do not ban indefinetly IP addresses. What you can do is to and stop using that IP if possible. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::There seems to have been a fair number of warnings issued to the IP. Would a soft block prohibiting anon posting but allowing account creation not solve the problem? --] 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes but i don't see the need for a soft block for now as there's been no vandalism from the IP since a week now. I'd do that if there'd be further vandalism. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 14:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could somebody who can read Chinese take a look at this? The user's previous userpage was deleted via MFD as being improper. This one has an external link and a search button, all in Chinese. (]) 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:The description of the external link is correct, it is a Wiki that mirrors the Chinese Misplaced Pages. The thing that looked like a search box was an input box asking you to create a dictionary entry (I think, I'm too lazy to look up all characters) for a ] dictionary. Unfortunately the create page link goes to the English Misplaced Pages. In particular, clicking the button without entering anything led to the "Editing Main Page" screen. I have removed the inputbox as it was misleading, but don't see a problem with the rest (note: I didn't read the MfD). ] ] 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Non-obvious linkspam ==

I noticed someone adding links of no immediate relevance to articles - it looks like articles of vague genealogical interest are beeing linked to www.tribalpages.com/tribes/<something>, with the <something> varying. If you do a search on "www.tribalpages.com/tribes/", you'll see what I mean (Search done for you here:. I'm not sure if this is vandalism, newbies, or something else. Could someone take a look, and give me their opinion? I'm sufficiently unsure to not just simply remove the references on sight. - ]<sup>]|]</sup> 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Remove them all. A geneology site written by nn relatives and descendants is linkspam. Not RS; not even relevant, and WP:NOT for promotion. Rem per ]. One puppy's opinion. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Allow me to modify that - on ] it actually is relevant, and correctly placed. Whether the site constitutes a RS for that article I will leave for othes to decide. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Use ] to find these links, ] can miss some. There are but a lot are from user and talk pages. ] 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== SndrAndrss again ==

This was discussed earlier - ] has been making various disputed changes to templates used in sports articles, and has despite many many many attempts to communicate with them - declined to reply or explain himself. He was blocked for 48 hours, and is back to his usual ways after this. I have given him another warning. I suggest if he disregards this, we indefinitely block him, with instructions on how to appeal this block, by agreeing to attempt to communicate with other users. Thoughts? ] - ] 14:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:. I don't think an indef block would be fair. What i'd suggest is to block him for a period of 2 weeks because of tendious editing. ''Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies.'' -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I don't mean indef block forever, I just mean an indef block until he leave a message on his talk page asking us to lift the block! I don't think a 2 week block will have any effect other than to make him wait 2 weeks. But if you think that's better, then ok. ] - ] 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I like the idea. However, the problem with that is that there's no policy which backs it. He's free to not to answer any question. If we'd block we'd do it because of his tendious editing. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::After he'd made an edit to the Estonian country flag to remove the border (which he has been asked not to a lot), I've blocked for a week, with a message clearly outlining that if he discusses things he will be unblocked. Hopefully it gets through this time. ] - ] 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well done Morwen. I support the block. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ]: Anti-Semitic User Page ==

User ] has an image from the anti-semitic book ''Judaism Without Embellishments'' adorning their User page. This image and the book it is taken from is racist and not appropriate for display on Misplaced Pages. ] 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

: Withdraw, the page has been blanked. ] 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I am dealing w/ that. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Harassment edit ==

Please consider action based on to User:MONGO's talkpage. Thank you. ] 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*plonk*</nowiki> ] 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

While running through ], I came across this new user who seems to just be mass voting "delete" on everything with no reasons listed. I noticed he was warned about it on his talk page, but I'm not entirely confident these edits were done in good faith. Should the votes be striked out or anything of that nature? --- ] 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'd make a comment directly below his !vote and say that the above statement was from a suspected single-purpose account. Strike it out if you want (I probably would). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Don't strike them out, the closing admin can make that judgement. But by all means note that all the user does is vote delete in every AFD. If they have failed to explain their reasons, most admins will ignore it, anyway. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Block of RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon ==

I have indef-blocked {{userlinks|RussianPatriot}} because he appears to be a sockpuppet created solely to attack another editor.

An account whose first (and only) edits were to create a user page, then an RfC (]), and then invite several editors to the RfC with the invitation seems...suspicious to me.

I have also indef-blocked {{userlinks|NapoleonBon}} because it was a newly-created account whose only edits were to create a minimal user page and endorse RussianPatriot's RfC. So far, RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon are the ''only'' editors to the RfC.

I post this message to seek review of my actions. I probably should also delete the RfC, but I've left it in place until I get a second opinion. ](]) 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:You beat me to it. I have deleted the troll RfC, which was a copy of the old ]. ] ] 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. ] 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Good for you! RussianPatriot is . --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, right&mdash;I suppose I should have recognized Bonaparte.... ](]) 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Bonaparte's antics should be discussed here at such length, but since they are, here's my take on the situation. After ] has been opened, Bonaparte seems to have been informed about it and was trolling there (and elsewhere) like crazy: see
, or , or ... With each new sock, he becomes more abusive and aggressive. Since it is clear that he still respects ] (who occasionally agitates for his unblocking), to reason with Bonaparte in the Romanian wikipedia, where the former is an admin. No response from Ronline and tons of trolling from Bonaparte... --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:: This mess gets worse and worse. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism of Kaaba page ==

The page concerning the Ka'ba in Mecca has had an inappropriate picture added. ] 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Usual vandalism as for thousands of articles. . Please refer to ] or ] next time. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I suspect the anon IP user is referring to ]. Whether it's inappropriate or not is a bit of a POV issue. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::See ]. There are varying traditions in this regard. It's definitely not an issue that's for administrators to address. --]&nbsp;(]) 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Is there any chance that we could get ] semi-protected? 16 of the past 50 edits are reverts of vandalism. Which means that about 24 of the past 50 edits are vandalism!] 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Just found appropriate page to make request...] 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Itaqallah and friends lying ==

Regarding can an administrator please take a look? His edit summary claims the edit is "unsourced OR" when clearly it is NOT OR and NOT UNSOURCED.

He's blatantly lying and I see no reason to even continue a pretense of assuming good faith in the case of this POV pusher; ] policy clearly states, "'''This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.'''"

Lying like this is pretty massive evidence. ] 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah's : there is no "discussion" of these changes anywhere previous on the talk page. ] 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:] can be your friend in a case like this. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::They don't care about that, it seems. ] 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Runed. Why can't you use the talk page before adding disputed content so you can discuss them and defend them? . Please use the talk page and stop accusing contributors of POV pushing. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Itaqallah has now had an lock the page . This is beyond insulting behavior and so far beyond good faith it is not even funny, and FayssalF's involvement would appear to be just another Muslim Guild member. ] 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:You need to take this up on ] before going to dispute resolution or ]. The only comment I see from you on that talk page is this: ''This article is already such nonsense it should probably just be deleted. Completely nonfactual propaganda and whitewashing. ] 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)'' and that doesn't speak to good faith on your part. | ] <small>]</small> 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Ummmmmmm! Talking about an admin who got a clean block log? (5 blocks w/in 1 month). Please behave. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't mean anything, they have friendly admins ready to harass anyone who doesn't think Muslim POV-pushing is OK at moment's notice. ] 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Please stop your accusations. It won't help your case. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:: seeing as RunedChozo has come to AN/I, i think it would be appropriate to mention that this user has been aggressively revert warring, for which he has been blocked several times. he has also been blocked before for exhibiting the same behaviour as soon as his block has expired. he was recently blocked for three days for revert warring, and as soon as his block has expired he is back, doing the exact same things again. as for my apparent lying, , and every revert since then has been to that version. and i have been involved in every discussion on the talk page, while RunedChozo has been involved in not one of substance. ] 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Itaqallah starts lying by calling a properly sourced item in the article "Original Research", doesn't mention his own constant edit-warring and POV-pushing that I've been trying to counteract so that the articles are actually fair and neutral (let's face it, "Mohammed the Diplomat" right now is a joke, nothing more than "mohammed was so great let's all worship him" fluff). His comment is nothing more than more bad faith. ] 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:I was examining block logs here and there's a massive disparity between Itaqallah and RunedChozo, that would seem to be indicative of where the problem is stemming from here. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Itaqallah is part of an organized meatpuppetry group called the "Muslim Guild." ] 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::Normally I don't like to bring this out, because it's more often used as a whacking stick, but this seems to be the case in point of why the policy was created: one '']'' on Misplaced Pages. I've heard the words "bad faith" or "lying" in your words far too often to be comfortable. Throwing around accusations, refusing to use the talk page or talk to them first, and accusing the ] of being on Itaqalla's side has not helped your case in the slightest, even if you were right. Please act more in line with the procedures that Misplaced Pages has set up before coming to the message board. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted to assume good faith, but I caught him '''blatantly lying in his edit summaries'''. ] does not say that I have to be a stupid idiot blind to obvious bad faith behavior, Patstuart, and I'll thank you to notice that please. ] 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Just for the record, let me also add that I do not particularly appreciate this: . ] ] 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::If you'd acted in good faith it wouldn't have been necessary. ] 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Fut.Perf, that diff doesn't look too promising as far as the future participation on the project of the editor concerned here. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Attack me all you like, that's what you do right? Attack the messenger? Yeesh. It was bad faith after I reported Itaqallah blatantly lying in edit summaries, and it's bad faith given the obvious conflict of interest. ] 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
'''In accordance with the dispute resolution page, I'm taking a break for the rest of the day. POV push all you like Itaqallah and Muslim Guild meatpuppets, I won't be around to stop you.''' ] 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:As I keep telling you, being incivil just increases wikistress for everyone. This is exactly ''why'' you AGF because getting into a mindset like this is just unhealthy. Misplaced Pages works on people being able to sit down and talk. Your rhetoric towards those you view as "POV Pushers" ensures they don't want to come to the table.--] 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
==={{user|RunedChozo}} blocked===
I blocked {{user|RunedChozo}} for his personal attacks and incivility here for a period of 1000 minutes (16 hours, 40 minutes). Reasonable? -- ''']''' 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Mild, I'd say. But I won't object. ] ] 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, I realize that. I just didn't want to have to deal with the ''you only blocked him cause he was saying anti-Muslim statements'' sentiment. I do think a longer block is not a bad idea, especially considering this block comes less than twenty-four hours after coming off another. -- ''']''' 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Having a look at this user's , i am afraid Netscott is right. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'd go up to <s>48h</s> a week on him, given his block history and the fact that they seem to have no effect on his behavior. | ] <small>]</small> 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:I reviewed and denied his unblock request. I will lengthen the block to 48 hours if nobody objects. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::User has continued this behavior on this talk page even after being blocked --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Reviewed and denied again. I don't see this going anywhere good. | ] <small>]</small> 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::<s>Also ] has reposted ]'s comments containing personal attacks upon Itaqallah and Future Perfect at Sunrise. </s>
::: I was a bit irritated by that too when I saw it, but I think the context makes it clear that Rosicrucian was only mirroring what Runedchoso had written on his talk page in order to reply to it. No reasons to get upset. ] ] 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, you're right. I didn't quite understand at first. <small>nevermind</small> --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Correct. When I reply to a comment left in my talkpage, I typically copy the conversation as completely as possible to the user's talkpage to preserve the context.--] 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I endorse a block length approximately five days. Also, the user is abusing {{t1|unblock}}. -- ''']''' 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Given that he is now removing denied unblock requests as well as warnings from admins, I'm afraid I have to endorse extending his block as well. He's made his bed, and he seems determined to lay in it.--] 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have increased his block to 48 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Considering his rather obvious block evasion here, I think another extension may be in order. --] 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::One step ahead of you; I restarted the block and upped it to five days, due to the further incivility and the fact that the user has been blocked multiple times (twice for three days). -- ''']''' 06:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

==]'s userpage again==
I've just gave a fresh block (24h) to ] for his persistent addition of provocative . I've warned him a few times but he couldn't abide by the rules. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:As his only articlespace edits are to change 'Allah' to 'God' repeatedly in ], I suggest making it indefinite next time if he doesn't show some sign of being useful. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::No doubt about that. Of course. I'll be watching him. -- '']'' ] <small>]</small> 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh sorry, I missed this when posting below, don't know how. I don't think there should be any tolerance at all, in the slightest, for this sort of thing - it should be straight to indefinite. ] | ] 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::The editor has made no useful contribs, and appears to be using ] as a forum for hate-speech. I would strongly support an indef block until this newcomer demonstates a bit more understanding of ]. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Endorse an indef. blocking per Doc. WP's NOT a soapbox and this is particularly the case for hateful displays. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== User willfully violating ] #9 ==

] is willfully violating ] item #9. Today, I removed some fair use images from his userpage as I have done on thousands of other pages . As per ], I did not leave him a talk page message but there was a detailed edit summary. He reverted my removals and in so doing added another fair use image. I removed these images and left him a talk page message . He reverted my second removal , and two minutes later left me a talk page message . I removed the images for a third time , and while I was leaving him another talk page message he reverted the removal again . Though I've been told that I may deal with this as rank and file vandalism, and ] does not apply since the user is willfully violating policy, I am bringing it here for other administrators to revert this user's violation and place a message on his talk page concurring with my actions and policy. Thank you, --] 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:] and I crossed wires slightly - he was protecting the page as I warned the user that he would be blocked if he continued, a warning which is now basically moot. But anyway, I think that resolves it one way or the other. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, he explained what I did. I protected the page. -- ''']''' 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:*Thanks for the quick assist, both of you. I've offered to unprotect if he agrees to stop violating this policy. --] 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

These two users who are doing nothing but vandalising each other's (and their own) pages. I gave each of them {{Tl|Userpage warning}} and {{]}} warnings as appropriate, but the nonsesnse has continues. I'm basically not sure where to go from here.

They are basically wasting resources (both WP's, and my own time in keeping an eye on them). Is a shortish block warranted here? ] 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked indef. What a bunch of nonsense ... two (presumably teenaged) friends coming to Misplaced Pages solely to vandalize each other's userpages. --] 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|Amoruso}} requests unblock ==

Hello. I have unblocked Amoruso yesertday in response to his request. However, Dmcdevit has convinced me that it would be proper to restore his block and solicit wider consensus. So I have reblocked him and taken the matter here.

Before you opine, see:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Amoruso
*http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Amoruso
*http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Crzrussian#Amoruso
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Amoruso_reported_by_User:RedMC_.28Result:48_hours.29

I have restored the original unblock request on Amoruso's talk page. Thank you. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
*He's clearly revert-warring without reference to the talk page. That he's four minutes outside 24 hours is frankly beside the point. I would also support page protection. ] ] 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

* Endorse block - "which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes" stinks of ], the purpose of ] is to prevent edit warring, not to permit provided specific rules are followed --] 21:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*Endorse as well. There's no reason we should encourage edit warring. Once people revert more than once you already have an issue. ] overrides such technicalities of four minutes. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
*My reasoning for the block was that for someone who has been blocked for 3RR before, 4 reverts in 24 hours ''and 4 minutes'' is simply gaming, and, compounded by the incivility, the block was valid and uncontroversial. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war. ]·] 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::''copied form user talk''
:::I'm disappointed by the POV of some users concerned in their remarks. ]'s claims for "warrior and single purpose" for example are completely false. While I was blocked once for 3RR it was controversial since I saw that as a serious infringement of ]. At this time I was involved in the edit-war and accidentally reverted 4 times against someone working against consensus. There was no incivility and I believe you were right in cutting the ban to essentially 12 hours. 48 hours was inappropriate especially since I contacted ] personally and also apologisied for reverting 4 times and agreed not to revert the article ever again - this even though I never violated ]. ] 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Yet he my explanation (as blocking admin) as to why ] did not apply for that case, then proceeded to request an unblock as if such an explanation never existed, writing: "Not only is that ruling wrong, but it's also supposed to be max 8 hours per first offense. But really in an edit war like this, no block should have been made, perhaps page protection" ] 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::He also got away recently without a block for persistent edit warring on ] (cf ), although another user was blocked for five days for a similar level of edit-warring on the same article. This user is a persistent problem. ] | ] 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Being the editor who reported Amoruso for (for which ] blocked ), I disagree with Amorusos report of the events. First; if anybody worked "against consensus", it was in fact Amoruso. Only three editors worked on the article at the time; two of us were in agreement, and Amoruso disagreed with the two of us. Secondly; I found Amoruso extremely incivil, e.g saying I made "outright lie"s, etc., which I find <i>very</i> offensive. (And nobody reviewing the edits/block have agreed with Amoruso) Regards, ] 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (who is, btw, a "she", even if Amoruso insists on referring to me as "he".)

*'''Endorse'''. ''In general'', I believe once a block is reversed on an editor, it should not be reinstated. Assume good faith, prevent edit wars, make the administrators look more consistent. :) However, there are too many other issues with this particular editor and I believe a 48 hour block is justified. It's only two days, anyway. --] 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*Coincidentially, I'm just finishing up writing a few words on this user based on his edits from last week alone, which I intend to post tomorrow/when done. This user has been engaged in some heavy disruptive behaviour and edit warring for months, and I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked more than twice. I think some furter action is warranted. -- ] 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

* I respectfully disagree. I know this is not a popular opinion and although I do not support Amoruso's every edit (in this case, I wish he had waited and not called his opponent a vandal). Please let's keep in mind that we deal with the area of WP inundated with daily attacks of all kinds. In his defense, I'd like to point out that Amoruso usually does discuss his edits on the talk pages and is far from being the worst violator of WP policies. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
** is a recent example of a user with worse violations who made 5 RVs in 24hrs weaseled out of block. I find such discrepancy in applying penalties unacceptable. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
***Discrepencies mean that it should be better enforced, not that we should unblock them all (otherwise you are aguing ''for'' that unblock). ]·] 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
**** Agreed. Since we discuss technicalities here, 24 hrs is 24 hrs - I saw users casually being forgiven for reverts made over period longer than 24 hrs. And finally, Amoruso's opponent was a sockpuppet of a banned user: ] ←] <sup>]]</sup> 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
* I've edited on the same pages as Amoruso for quite awhile now. Like Humus, I don't endorse every edit he has ever made, but I completely disagree with Steve Hart and Palmiro that he should be singled out for censure and criticism. I would ask you Steve, when you make the list yo mention, to look at ALL parties concerned and their behavior as well as Amoruso's. It obviously takes more than one editor to make an edit war. Amoruso is interested in some very contentious pages. These pages are also plagued with frequent vandalism. The general contentiousness of his topics of interest, and the way MANY OF US deal with them, are at the root of the problem. Given the contentiousness of the topics, we would all do well to pay very close attention to WP policies about NPOV, civility and assuming good faith (note to self and others). Singling out one editor for severe censure is not as helpful to the project as learning to compromise, to state things neutrally, to allow more than one pov on a particular page. ] 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:*Editors are judged on their own edits, the misbehaviour of other editors is not an excuse for violating the rules. I'm not going to include other editors as I'm not involved in the case, but do report them if you want. Your wise words about NPOV and civility is actually the root of the problem, since this user has a longtime history of ''not'' adhering to these policies. When a user such as ] posts to the Notice board for Israel-related topics that, quote, "I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material" (partial quote) it should ring a bell. -- ] 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose block per Humus and Elizmr. It also seems to me that if the "3RR" is going to be applied the way some people are applying it, the reference to 24 hours should be eliminated from the policy page. If the rule is really that you can't revert more than three times in an unspecified time frame as determined subjectively by an administrator after the situation has occurred, let's say so. ] 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*Endorse, ]'s judgement was correct. This is particularly the case when the user who posted the Amoruso 3RR report was himself blocked just before from a report posted by Amoruso. Also, ANI should not have been brought into this rather obvious case. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*Oppose block per Humus, Elizmr and 6SJ7. Amoroso was not violating 3RR so the reverse of the block was correct. I agree also with Humus that he has thrown himself into the maelstrom of some very contentious pages and that there needs to be evenhandedness here. I've personally stopped editing some contentious pages involving religion because the arguing is endless and never resolved. He might want to step back from some of this editing but I think that singling him out for severe censure is not warranted.--] 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:*Edit warring in general is discouraged. I think that ] likely contributes to the erroneous notion often held by edit warriors that they have a right to revert 3 times within 24 hours, as long as they do not exceed the electric fence. This is false and it should be clarified that edit warring is bad, without specific reference to the numerical requirements of 3RR. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:: The fact of life is, we do need an electric fence because some users won't listen to any arguments and some policy must be enforced. The problem is, it is enforced inconsistently. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree...but four minutes? ] even says "users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day". <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Amoruso's editing is aggressive, but those he is opposing seem equally aggressive, if not moreso, and Amoruso does the edit page to support his edits. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*Oppose block per Jayjg. Once we begin overstepping the actual 24h limit, we're down a slippery slope. Does 4 reverts in 24H+ 55 min count as gaming, too? 25 H? ] 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:*If Amoruso was indeed engaging a banned user then I would support a lifting of his block. Obviously the original blocking admin ] could independently verify this. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' block per Humus and Elizmr explntion. He is a revert warrior but is a longstanding contributor in a very contentious area where we have recently seen the formation of a ] dedicated to protecting their member's views. ] 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' since he was reverting a blocked sockpuppet (per Humus et al). While I don't agree with many of his edits, I don't see why he should be singled out, especially as he does utilise Talk and generally respects policy. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per humus and others, I can recall of many precedents were it was decided that 3RR specifically means that the user reverted at least four times in a twenty-four period (at least one of Irishpunktom's blocks comes to mind, ). Anyway, Amoruso isn't really a problem user, while he can be very aggressive I would primarily attribute it to reactivity to the behavior of other users rather than anything malicious on the part of Amoruso.- ] | ] 07:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' I'm disappointed to see several editors who share Amoruso's political viewpoints, to the extent that a couple of them has exchanged barnstars with him, suddenly comes out in support. Editors should not value political leanings over rules and procedures. And I don't think edit warring with a sock puppet changes the facts of the case, unless he ''knew'' it was a sockpuppet, in which case he should have reported him instead of revert warring. Dealing with a sock puppets is not a carte blanche to do what pleases us. -- ] 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::Please read over the ] policy before you decide to comment on the presonal motivations of other editors.- ] | ] 08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::*WP:AGF does not exclude me from raising the point that sometimes editors let their personal opinions stand in the way of upholding our policies. -- ] 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Moshe's right; just because it a number editors who have 'exchanged barnstars'with Amoruso are supporting him in this does not mean that we can assume that it is their shared viewpoints that lead them to do so. That being said, I note that a good number of the arguments are "but the others are worse!" Not a relevant statement, and one that one hears from people who are supporting someone for the sake of supporting someone. ] 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I have stubbed the Ron Jeremy article in accordance with the BLP policy, as it contained large amounts of unsourced and potentially defamatory material. ] Has been restoring the material, claiming my actions are vandalism despite clear edit summaries stating that the edits are for BLP reasons. Posting this here because the BLP board is relatively unmonitored. Thanks, ] 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:That action makes little sense. Why not identify (''specifically'') the issues instead of removing everything in the article. The entire article now consists of "Ronald Jeremy Hyatt is an American actor." (!) ] 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I actually have to agree with the removal of what was last removed in the article. The tid bits that were in that were a bit excessive, unsourced (are there any?), and a bit POVish. Maybe rewording would be a little better. Try to calmly talk this one out on the talk page, and abstain from editing until an agreement can be reached. Note, I didn't see this, which is excessive to do with the exception of copyvios. ] 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::I have removed the bits that Frise had problems with per ] and warned both editors about revert warring. I cannot see much more that would be seen as libellous but blanking the page would not be the best course of action - removing the offending info would be. Hope this helps. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Note that you added an infobox to the article stating that he has a 3.25 inch penis. Do you believe this isn't negative material? What other information did you not verify before you added it? What is true, and what isn't? ] 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I have explained this on your talk page, please read it. You have now been told by myself and Tabercil, and the editors above that blanking is the incorrect course of action here.-]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical question: If I were to add the statement "Damon is referred to as "the clown prince of porn" for his comic sensibility and "The Hedgehog" because of his hairy body." to the article on Matt Damon, would that be a BLP violation? How is it any less of one because it's Ron Jeremy? If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to source. If it isn't able to be sourced, it shouldn't be in the article. That's not to say that each and every living person article should be stubbed, of course, but in this case there is too much bad mixed in with the good. The article should be stubbed and good information carefully added back with proper sources. ] 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:You are slightly confused by the ] - the idea is to remove controversial material from such articles, not all unsourced statements - the majority of the information in that article is not controversial. If you think the article needs sources, add an 'unsourced' boiler plate to the article, don't blank it.-]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:The article as it stands is shit. Apologies for the language, but it's appalling. As it's a living person, all content should be vigorously sourced, particularly when what is there is risible. I've spammed every uncited 'fact' with a citation needed tag. Anything not cited within or day or two will be excised. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::If you have to apologise for your language, you shouldn't use it... Seriously though, the issue Frise had was BLP which demands the removal of ''controversial'' unsourced information.-]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::Unsourced information may be removed by any editor, especially negative information and doubly especially in ]. If editors wish to put it back, they must ] it first. I cannot ''believe'' that people still do not grasp that we are writing an encyclopaedia, not Misplaced Pages, the collective repository of shit people think they know about stuff. I had to remove a report on ] about this, for ----'s sake. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::So you say that blanking a page is better than going through and removing the problematic info?-]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::'''This is looking at the problem incorrectly. Blanking the page is better than doing nothing. Better still, would be to go through and remove the problematic information. The worst thing would be to do nothing. I would rather than we have a nearly blank article of information that we can verify, than a long article of unsourced and unprovable nonsense. I have said more ].--] 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::::All unsourced information is problematic. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Browsing through the history, I see that {{IPuser|155.33.145.172}} is our problem user for violating ]. Although everything was unsourced beforehand, he introduced a lot of BLP vandalism into the article that I later saw removed.—] (]) 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Restoring bad information after it has been removed is no different than adding it in the first place. ] 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Not my point. There was no "bad" information in the article to begin with, just very little sourced information. Some anonymous user vandalized it, afterwhich you removed everything but "Ron Jeremy is a male adult film star." I also find it a little odd that you have only registered in the past 48 hours, and are well versed in ]'s regulations.—] (]) 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::All unsourced information is bad. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry but you didn't answer the question there. The user, Frise, blanked a page that contains a large amount of information - about half (i'd guess) is sourced. Are you saying that it was right for him to wipe all of that information? All I have done is gone through and removed the BLP offending information - leaving the general unsourced stuff to be dealt with on the article by people who edit it regularly.-]<sup>]</sup> 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Nope, the last version blanked by Frise () was completely unsourced, apart from a single line about him appearing at the Oxford Union - which wouldn't have had much context if it was left in the stub. I did answer the question; you asked me if blanking a page is better than removing the problematic info, and the answer is that in a (to all intents and purposes) completely unsourced article, blanking ''is'' removing the problematic info. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Well as far as I can see, I can see 3 sources there - one regarding the oxford talk, one to the Adult film db and one to the IMDB - which contains some information. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it also contains information which is simply not needing blanking because of those 3.-]<sup>]</sup> 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::And I'm merrily beavering away in the background with Google trying increase the number of sources: from 3 to 11, and growing. Just the same, a lack of citations shouldn't be fatal to an article... look at ]'s article - I count 7 "citation needed" links. As I type this, Ron Jeremy now stands at 9 cites needed. ] 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::And of those 7 citation needed links in the article about me, virtually all of them are citation needed because they are false, misleading, or POV. There are no citations for a reason... --] 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Two general information sites added to the bottom of the article cannot count as sourcing. If they can be used as a source, then editors should have no problem spending five minutes adding inline citations to the relevant parts of the article before re-adding the information. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few editors here that are missing the point here. Frise - you deleted everything in the article, regardless of whether it was sourced or not. How is this acceptable??-]<sup>]</sup> 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:The stubbing of the article was '''way''' too dramatic. Frise should focus more on improving the article and discussing particular points of issue (if there really are any) rather than wiping the article down to nothing. The stubbing looks like a ] violation to me, given that Frise's account is so new and yet supposedly so well-versed in ]. ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::Fellas, this ]. There's a pattern here that I don't like. | ] <small>]</small> 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Regardless of the motivation behind the editing, about which I am disinclined to speculate, I suggest that your was not a good edit, and would encourage you to revert yourself. ] 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::He should revert himself on this one as well. People seem to be more concerned by my status rather than the relevant policy. That's too bad. ] 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::My concern is that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some/much of that content can come out, but you're also removing plenty of legitimate, easily sourced content on the grounds that it's unsavory, not that it's inaccurate or unsource-able. For example, I just added one citation to ] to the section I restored. I couldn't care less how long you've been here; I care that you're deleting legitimate content. | ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Negative unsourced material is not legitimate content. If you are adding the material back with sources then you are doing exactly the right thing. Wholesale reversion of unsourced articles that speculate on penis size and general attractiveness is not. ] 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Following up, both ] and ] are now restored, with proper citations for all content that ] removed. | ] <small>]</small> 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Much appreciated. ] 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::The only point I see is that some new accounts understand ] better than some older ones. Deeply regrettable, but not in the way you think. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Indeed, that is a scary pattern. Some of the information he is removing is being done so correctly, but in other places it would have been very easy to get citations for the info (for example the Helen Wong article with its list of movies would likely have been available on the Adult film db site.) I wonder if Frise will own up to who they really are?-]<sup>]</sup> 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::If it's easy to get citations, then editors should have no problem adding them, instead of simply reverting and making innuendos about the account's age. The burden of proof is on those adding or restoring information, not those removing it. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware stubbing of an article is only used in ] concerns; if it's just run-of-the-mill unsourceable statements, just remove them as appropriate, don't wipe out the whole article. --] 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:What shall we do if the whole article on a living person is unsourced statements? ] 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::Add {{tl|verify}} to the top of the article, add {{tl|citation needed}} to anything in the article that needs specific attention, and maybe look for sources yourself? | ] <small>]</small> 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::''"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"''. ]. Please read it, and stop suggesting that people who find rubbish in the street are responsible for sweeping it up. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::As for the obligatory "tag it and go away" arguments, maintenance tags are less of a sticking plaster, more someone sellotaping a piece of paper to the wound reading "This is bleeding, pls fix". Certainly not a solution. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of
random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be
tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed,
aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all
information, but it is particularly true of negative information about
living persons." - Jimbo Wales, on the Mailing List linked from the BLP page. ] 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Note the words "unless it can be sourced." So far, everything I've found that you've removed has been easy to source. I'm not sure why you won't make that effort. | ] <small>]</small> 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::If it's been easy to source, then what's the problem? Why are editors so up in arms if it's so easy for them to replace the material in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy? --]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::I can't speak for any other editor but myself. Why do I find Frise's actions problematic? One, he's removing accurate-but-unsourced content, rather than taking the time to source it himself. He's not removing inaccurate content, according to the sample at which I looked. Two, he's doing it quickly, meaning that lots of accurate content will be lost, because it's faster to run around deleting than it is to run around sourcing. Three, he's using a cleaver when he needs a paring knife, and has caught up a lot of innocuous info in his deletions (e.g., in the ] deletion, he took out simple details like the fact that Law was married and divorced, has several children, was engaged to Sienna Miller, etc.). And finally, this still looks like ] to me - particularly the part about coming here to talk about his actions. Nothing speaks more loudly than a set of solid citations, IMO. That's the sound I'd prefer to hear. | ] <small>]</small> 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::If I hear the words ''"rather than taking the time to source it himself"'' or variants on the theme of 'people who find rubbish in the street are responsible for sweeping it up' one more time, I'm going to be the one running round with a cleaver, and it won't be metaphorical, it will be sharp. ]. As far as ] goes, the worst Frise can be accused of is a breaching experiment on, well, how much we're willing to follow the cornerstone policy that makes us an encyclopaedia and not ]. The answer is, apparently, not very. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::I think it's more to do with editors wanting to improve an article having to rummage through the page history to see if there are possibly unsourced bits that were removed earlier, that would in fact be easy to source. Many editors prefer to see articles gradually build up the way we are used to seeing the wiki-process work. Editor A adds this bit, Editor B adds this bit, Editor C adds a fair use image, Editor D adds sources for the bits that Editor A and B added, Editor E replaces the fair use image with a free image, and so on. This process is being short-circuited (for good reasons) for articles about living people where the material may be libellous or without sources. Obviously it would help if those removing unsourced material and those wanting to re-add the material, could work ''together'' to find sources. I once saw a suggestion for a voluntary code where everyone who removes a piece of unsourced material should try to counterbalance that with adding a source for another piece of material (not necessarily in the same area). That would ensure productiveness in the addition of sources, as well as productiveness in the removal of unsourced material. ] 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:The original issue that was raised was that ] was crowded and larely unmonitored. I have, as per nobody objecting on the talk page, archived everything that was a month old (there were still listings from early October on there). I have also suggested, on the talk page, that we use tags similar to {{tl|drt}} and {{tl|drb}} to close issues that have been resolved. That way, the noticeboard will be of a manageable size and scope. Please consider (1) replying on the talk page if you like or do not like my suggested method for closing issues and (2) remanding this particular issue to ] since it was setup for that purpose. Thank you. ] 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:I rather disapprove of editors creating a new account purely to do things they think will be unpopular, so that the tar won't stick to their other account. Frise, knock it off. Pages should not be blanked when only certain parts of it are problematic. ] (]:]) 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

===How to differentiate real stubs and cut-down stubs===
One of the problems here is that this action of pruning to a stub (''which is quite proper for articles on living people where there are problems'') fails to differentiate between articles that are a stub and always have been a stub, and those stubs that are the remnants left behind after pruning (what I call a pruned or cut-down stub). Ideally, anyone expanding a stub will first check the page history to find out whether the stub is a genuine stub (usually shown by a stub template) or whether it is a stub that has been cut-down from an earlier version. Often though, a cut-down stub gets expanded from scratch, and previous effort is wasted. It is sometimes more efficient to build on previous material, adding sources, rather than building up again from scratch. Sometimes, of course, it is more efficient to build up again from scratch. '''It depends on the article.''' I have a proposal that I hope will avoid well-intentioned editors coming along later and rebuilding from scratch and duplicating previous work (they might, for instance, add a stub template, re-inforcing the impression that a stub was all that ever existed). My proposal is to have a template that people can use if they are pruning down to a stub, and this puts a stub-like template at the bottom of the article that explains what has happened, places the article in a category of articles that have been 'pruned', and either gives the date(s) when the pruning(s) took place, or a link to the version just after pruning (those that know how can then skip back a version to review the material and decide whether any material is worth is rescuing). This is what I would call thoughtful and constructive pruning, leaving the path open for rebuilding and regrowth, as opposed to lazy, quick, 'blunt hacking' type of pruning that is destructive and sometimes tramples roughshod over previous work (some of which was added in good faith and is perfectly OK).

What do people think of this idea? I'm not that good at creating and implementing such templates. Can anyone create or find such a 'pruning' template? ] 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Unblock request pending review ==

I don't know who is watching Requests for Unblock, nor what the usual response time on that board is, but there is a block that should be reviewed pending at ]. The blocking administrator, ] (redlink is correct), is aware of the unblock request and has posted his views on the userpage, so the block is ready to be reviewed. ] 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*There's discussion on the talk page, and it's clear that ThuranX's edit summaries ''are'' deceptive, and that his use of the deletion debate is incorrect. I'd feel better if somebody else had blocked, but I see no reason to overturn. ] ] 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*I'll admit I'm surprised by that analysis. It appears to me that Philwelch, in his capacity as an editor, blanked an entire article after talkpage discussion that elicited mixed views and turned it into a redirect. ThuranX disagreed with that action and reverted with an edit summary "rv vandalism." That was less than helpful but I can't see it as warranting a 24-hour block, particularly by the administrator who was engaged in an ongoing content dispute with the editor. Granted the user has some rough edges and some history. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure someone looked at it. ] 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
**From the talk page there seemed to be agreement that a merge was a good idea, and that it wasn't just Philwelch in favour of the idea. I'm not one to count heads, but 3-1 with the 1 maintaining that the AfD result was a binding reason to do nothing...granted, Philwelch certainly shouldn't have made the block. We need another opinion here. ] ] 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
**II am second that Philwelch shouldn't have made the block. Thuran was incivil and was already warned for incivility, but Philwelch should not have blocked him. IMHO blocking for rvv in summary is warranted after a few specific warnings and there was non. If nobody objected I would give Thuran a stern warnings and unblock him. Also a warning for Phil is IMHO warranted as well ] 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked and asked him, ThuranX, to engage on the talk page (you're right, Brad, that ''was'' somewhat out-of-character for me). Whether Phil needs to be engaged further on this matter remains an open question, and perhaps one best pursued by ThuronX himself. ] ] 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

] has abused the blocking policy in the past. ] 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:It appears I have a stalker. Whatever the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a retraining order is, I want one placed on this clown. ] 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::Phil, you don't have a stalker, and you shouldn't call anyone a clown like that. You have drawn the attention of someone who didn't like what you did in the past, and who quite rightly alerts the community when you do similar things again later. If there is a pattern of inappropriate behaviour on your part, then the problem may be with you, and not those drawing attention to this pattern. ] 08:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
''Addendum: User says he's still autoblocked. Someone take a look, please?'' ] 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::I have looked, and I can't find anything that says he is blocked still. --] (<big>]]</big>) 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, and although I know ThuranX dislikes me (He tends to accuse me of conspiracy against him), I do also want to voice my disappointment with the editor's blocking him. Find another editor and ask for them to review the situation. This was inappropriate. --] (<big>]]</big>) 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
My thanks to all the Admins and Users who helped me get unblocked, esp. those involved with the odd lingering autoblock, including NYBrad, ChrisGriswold(yes, really!), and Sarah Ewart. ] 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Request block for editor who repeatedly inserts attacks ==

{{vandal|Derik101}} has been engaged in a pattern of attackish and, in some cases, particularly vicious insertions into articles. He has been blocked once for 48 hours for PA and vandalism. His insertions include something he's just done for the second time:
*
And this less recent, but repeated and more vicious attack:
*
I'd suggest a week, and next time indefinite. This guy's contributions are mostly vandalism and stuff like above.--] ] 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked indefinitely (not by me). You can report cases like these to ] for a faster response. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Endorse indefinite. I've also blanked the names as posted here, as there's no reason to spread this stuff further, and suggest deleting the edits. ] 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::That's fine with me. Next time I won't post names when re-posting the attacks. I've got about 55 hours before I get the bit, so somebody else will have to do the legwork of deleting the edits from the articles.--] ] 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Now, now, don't go counting your chickens ... you're only at 45/0/1 at the moment. :) ] 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
''Someone please delete these edits from the article histories.'' ] 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I just blocked ] for a 3RR violation at ]. This is Daffy's 11th block since June. As such, I made the block indefinite because I see little evidence that Daffy is trying to play by the rules. As I have had my own problems with this user in the past, I'd like other admin to review the block. I'd also like to hear opinions as to how long this user should remain blocked. BTW, I also blocked ] for 24 hours as part of this incident. -- ] 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Daffy has responded to the block with a legal threat. -- ] 02:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Someone beat me to it, I think, but an indef block was definitely the right move, given the legal threat. | ] <small>]</small> 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::As he continues his incivility and legal threats on his Talk page, I have protected it. ]|] 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Without trying to sound pedantic, he has 7 - excluding unblocks and reblocks. I only looked it up because I blocked him a while ago. ''']''' (]) 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

==Today's featured article==

There are penises on ]. Cannot work out how to delete them. They seem to be floating above the text. Could someone with more technical experience take a look? -]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:It looks like that image was used in {{tl|Politics of India}}. ] got there to revert it about 10 seconds before me ;) ] 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::Any ideas about the painting of female genitals now super-imposed over the article?-]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::That was from {{tl|Rights}}. That too is gone ... though someone should face being eaten by a clown for protecting it without reverting it. ;)
::::And it looks like there was another one in {{tl|fnb}} that ] got. FYI, to patrol for search things, take a look at ... this is Special:Recentchanges set on the template namespace. You can easily look for redlinked users and find them. ] 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Two additional templates were affected by this, and all have been vandalized using deceptively phrased edit summaries and creative use of includeonly code, just as they were last week. The entire lot has been semi-protected for the time being, please feel free to adjust as necessary. ] 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The day's featured article should be move-protected as well, as there has also been pagemove vandalism on a couple of the recent FA's, and there is no valid reason why anyone would move them. ] 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Agree wholeheartedly. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== The return of ]/] etc. ==

], and editor who was banned for aggressive editing, reverting, and sockpuppeting, eventually returned as ], under the understanding that he would stop sockpuppeting and editing in the same aggressive way as previously. Since then his ] account has received several blocks, and he has created a number of other sockpuppets, including ], ], ] and user ], some of which have also been blocked for 3RR, and all of which exhibit the same editing patterns (aggressive editing and reverting, removal of "AD" from articles, etc.) For more detail regarding this editor, see ] and ].

As the new accounts have been editing in the exact same way as the previous problematic (and indefinitely blocked) accounts, I suggested on the Arbitration Committee list that these accounts should be indefinitely blocked as well; Essjay and Jimbo have supported this suggestion, and no ArbCom members have objected. I have therefore gone ahead and tagged and blocked the accounts, and brought this incident here for further discussion, if necessary. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:I wasn't even aware that we allowed the user to continue editing at Misplaced Pages after his constant use of sockpuppets :). I think it's clear that he should be blocked on sight. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, he has had plenty of opportunity to stop being disruptive. Ban. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Support, the style was definitely familiar. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::One question about the , is it confirmed by checkuser or edit pattern? Because they require tagging of different templates per ] --] <sup>(])</sup> 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] and admin coaching again - internal spamming? ==

See ]. This time it's regarding a userfied form of his old "admin school" (see ]). 32 talk messages in the space of 40 minutes, carrying the same thing. Internal spamming? &ndash; ]] 08:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like he's continuing. Can an admin please take a look? &ndash; ]] 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::I now count 46 user talk messages in the space of just 63 minutes. Surely this counts as some sort of disruptive ]? &ndash; ]] 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Have a word on the talk page, and suggest that it be limited to advertising in a few selected places, or to those who have participated in the past or are participating at the moment. ] 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::What difference would suggesting that it be limited make at the moment, because he's obviously continuing to press ahead with spamming talk pages with the same message. I'd have a word, but I consider myself semi-involved with the whole Admin school thing, and would rather not be the one doing it. &ndash; ]] 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::I've asked him to comment here -- ] 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, I'd like to hear his explanation. &ndash; ]] 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We're still experiencing a bottleneck at Admin Coaching, with the wait time measured in months. I thought the VC could be of help to those waiting since it would give them a place to learn advanced Misplaced Pages skills in the meantime. The message was sent only to those on the admin coaching waiting list, because the current topic of discussion is especially relevant to them: we're currently running a Q&A session on vandalism. You are all invited as well, and I'm sure everyone there would love to read about your vandalism fighting methods. &nbsp;''''']'''''09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Virtual classroom.. uhm.. :-\ <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:"The message was sent only to those on the admin coaching waiting list" Okay, so that settles my worries about internal spamming, but since it's such a long list would it not have been better to just make a public announcement at the Village Pump or on Esperanza's talk page or something similar? Secondly, isn't this almost equivalent to a POV-fork in article space? &ndash; ]] 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
::How is it different that the subject of this MfD: ]. I'm just curious, wasn't fully aware of these admin coaching programs -- ] 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for asking. &nbsp;&nbsp; It was covered in this subsequent MfD: ]. Basically the scope is much wider, that is, a discussion is run every week or two on a major topic, with a guest writer contributing the material and fielding questions, and other general classroom assignments. Here's the link to the page: ''']''' Please, come have a look. ] 09:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== ]'s threats ==

Hello all,

In the past few days, this guy made some highly incivil edits. The first one was on ], where he apparently has the pretention to teach an admin how to do his job.

Here are some "nice" stuff from the diff. "Your failure to participate in that thread is, in my opinion, further indicative of a disregard of Misplaced Pages's guidelines on etiquette.", "I fail to see how you can serve any real use on Misplaced Pages." and above all, "the next RfC you will be reading might not be someone elses', but your own". The user apparently fails to grasp the principles of wikipedia, and threatening someone with an RfC borderlines on trolling.

The second "nice" edit was on , where the user basically threatens to "review my contributions", that is to say, to stalk someone else's past edits because he fancies to. I find such an attitude highly disturbing.

He got an informal warning from Inshaneee and Alex Bakharev on his talk, but I think a further reflection on the matter and a potential enforcement might be necessary on the present page. I hope it will get some more attention than the previous one, too. Thanks for your attention, ] <sup>]</sup> 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Longtime disruptive behaviour by ] ==

''(note: there's a preceding debate above regarding a disputed 4RR by this user, I wrote this up before that situation arose).''

Attention to ] per WP:DE. This user is engaged in editing Arab-Israeli articles where he, as I see it, is on a personal mission. While I believe he has violated pretty much every policy and guideline we have in the months he has been here, I will limit diffs to a few of his recent edits (mostly from Dec. 3 - 8):

* removing the flag of Lebanon from the article ''2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict'':

* page move, moving ''Sirhan Sirhan (militant)'' to ''Sirhan Sirhan (murderer)''

* deleting material properly sourced to BBC: , ABC News: , PBS, others; blanking text in references:

* adding material based on partisan sources without independent verification, e.g.:

* a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g.:

* consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: , including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor:

* and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully, as a suggestion to editors of WikiProject Israel to take the edit wars over ] to other country articles in the region, I quote: ''"See the concerns over Talk:Israel#Permanent semi-protection. I wonder how we can address the issue that Israel's article will be attacked fervently but it seems that nobody is concerned with articles concerning Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran... ... I feel that this line of thought is an attack on Israel's sovregnity as state and I just wonder if there can be some perspective or edits by us on other country articles in the region atleast to attempt to balance the heavy and undue bias."'', (partial quote)

I should provide additional diffs on request. I briefly wrote about this editor's behaviour three months ago, here: . There was a brief discussion on AN/I last month which involved the editor and a bad faith request to have a page unprotected:
. You should note that I was involved in a dispute with the editor in August
, but I also received some kind words from him
. I'm generally not editing the same articles as him, we crossed paths as I was working on the NPOV backlog.

People are allowed to hold strong opinions and still edit articles. But it doesn't exempt them from following rules. In this case we're dealing with a user who for a long time has replaced well sourced material with text and links to partisan sites, is edit warring when other editors objects and often resort to calling those who disagree with him vandals.

This user has been subject to every attempt of dispute resolution except ArbCom, so it would be nice with some discussion on AN/I. I believe that this kind of behaviour is out of line and has been allowed to go on for too long. While I wouldn't call for a ban myself, I do think that the editor needs a break from editing Israel-Palestine related articles, at least for a month or more. -- ] 09:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:10, 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

    Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

    VPN socking blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. Liz 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User" . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)
    Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)
    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)

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
    Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
    As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
    On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    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.

    Mgtow definition

    Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of WP:GRENADE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    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)

    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)

    Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

    Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64

    Blocked for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

    I've protected the page for 24 hours. @Rambling Rambler and @Hellenic Rebel are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow dispute resolution processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300

    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again

    diff1 diff2

    diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    (nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

    /24 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?

    There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    .I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
    I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Comments by Locke Cole

    No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. Star Mississippi 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:

    • Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.
    I replied to this with What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.
    • Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.
    And I replied to this one with Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.

    This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) EF 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    bolding policies I've added at the end - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. EF 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    • So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? EF 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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.

    POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

    There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. @Elvenlegions: please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. Star Mississippi 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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


    I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    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)

    Bunch of racist IPs/account

    Sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

    Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Urgent need for page protection on BLP

    Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    There is currently a content dispute going on at Kay Granger involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again

    Genre warrior sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (1, 2) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    /64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:NoahBWill2002

    NOTHERE blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    It looks like there's a pretty severe competence is required issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/derivative works, adding their own art to Fan art (and then doing it again after being warned), or adding personal opinion to articles. Lastly this comment is quite inappropriate and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this.
    (As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)
    I think admin action is warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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:GDJackAttack1 mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places

    GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs) has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (example), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (example), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at this AfD. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are phantom settlements.

    There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their talk page consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)

    TPA for 83.106.86.95

    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    83.106.86.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can you please help?

    William Swainson got moved from William John Swainson (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at Talk:William John Swainson, and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at Talk:William Swainson. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. Oholiba (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

     Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.
    @Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
    Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    POVPushingTheTruth

    The truth may set you free, but WP:THETRUTH will get you blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    User:POVPushingTheTruth is clearly NOTHERE. C F A 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)

    Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources

    Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Hello,

    I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @Ratnahastin over the content in the the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The editor removed significant content, citing User:Sitush/CasteSources as justification. Here are my concerns:

    1. Misapplication of Policy:

    Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

    2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:

    The removed content was based on British Raj-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.

    3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:

    Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "AI-generated" and warned me about sanctions under WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, discouraging collaboration.Check here for the warning

    Evidence:

    Diff of my original version

    Diff of their first edit

    Diff of their second edit

    Ratnahastin talk page


    Request for Administrative Action:

    1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.

    2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.

    3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.

    4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -Their Diff) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@Ratnahastin) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request (please find it here) for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.

    Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.

    Best Regards

    --- Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Nothing to say about me really bot

    Locked (non-admin closure). C F A 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per m:NTSAMR. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Concern About a New Contributor

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

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

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

    "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
    Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
    By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
    She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
    Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
    •
    •
    •
    •
    and many more
    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @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 (Kriji Sehamati,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)

    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.

    Extremely Annoying situation

    Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.

    The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.

    on my page

    On theirs

    they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.

    Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    IP vandalism

    Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    This user: user:76.67.115.228 seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrainman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example irisChronomia (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at WP:AIV. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    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)
    Category: