| Revision as of 16:00, 7 January 2007 editEVula (talk | contribs)39,066 edits →Crazy wacky funtime: response← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:34, 24 December 2024 edit undoFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors246,742 edits →Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 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 ] == | ||
| 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 . | |||
| {{User|Isarig}} has been disruptively editing several pages, and his behavior seems to be a result of a dispute between he and I over the ] page, which is now in ]. A couple of days ago, he showed up on the ] and began obsessively reverting an edit that I had made (I had deleted the reference to "piss christ" from the article). I thought my edit was reasonable, but it was strongly objected to by an anonymous user. Isarig, who has apparently , suddenly showed up to defend the anon editor and to revert my change. He was asked to stop disrupting by other editors including myself. I sent the page to RfC and I explained the main reasons why I thought the "piss christ" reference was both irrelevant and trivial. I also explained that it was better situated on a general article about ] rather than the article about a specific incident of Quran desecration that occurred at Guantanamo Bay. He never bothered to add the link to the general desecration article, but insisted that it belongs on this more specific article, even though his main argument is that they are both forms of general desecration and/or religious intolerance. This suggests to me that the only reason he is making the change on that article is to "get back" at me by reverting a change I made rather than because he actually believes his own arguments. I feel that such behavior is disruptive and I asked him to stop. I stated that if he felt strongly that "piss christ" was something specifically related to the ] then he should be willing to write a couple of sentences indicating what the link is between the two and enter those sentences in the article, so that the reference does not seem to come out of nowhere. He refused to do so. It seems his only interest is in one-upping me, and indeed, in another dispute a few weeks ago, he . Instead of allowing other editors to comment on the RfC, he has continued to repeat himself on that section of the page, without responding to the arguments I brought up. That section has become a long mess of tit-for-tat arguments, making it unlikely that many other editors will take the time to sort the arguments out there and actually move the dispute forward. It is alarming to me that such energy has been expended over something that seems to me utterly noncontroversial -- adding the words "piss christ" to a totally unrelated article. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| While this dispute was ongoing, I made an to the article ], another article that Isarig had never edited before. Again, he showed up out of the blue just to revert me, and has already reverted me in 24 hours. I asked him to stop stalking my edits and he threatened to report me (which to me was the final straw, leading to this report). This is a pattern in my interactions with this user -- he revert-wars over petty items; he refuses to acknowledge any POV other than his own, he accuses me of personal attacks while at the same time personally attacking me. He constantly threatens to report me over minor infractions while at the same time engaging in personal attacks that are often vicious (witness, for example, and , from a while back, where he specifically attacks me for my occupation, tells me that I am not fit for employment in my job. While those comments are from a while ago, he again as a means of attacking me -- a direct violation of ], which suggests that personal attacks include "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Throughout the discussion on that page he charged me over and over with "insulting other editors" yet never cited a single example of where I had done so. I am tired of being sucked into arguments with him over petty reversions. I am here to improve the articles, not to get into shouting matches and ego battles with other editors. I don't like reporting people to WP:ANI because I prefer these matters be settled in discussion; however, when he threatened to report me for accusing him of stalking - which he has demonstrably been doing - I felt the time had come to make a report. I hope his disruptive editing, and previous blocks for incivility (in particular, a libelous comment made a while back about the subject of a WP:BLP) will be taken into account when determining how long of a block his behavior merits. ] 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :This might have risen to a legitimate instance of Wikistalking, but you're harming your own case through forum shopping and selective presentation of evidence. You fail to mention that six weeks ago I responded to those same diffs at ] and rebuked you for conduct unbecoming the dignity of the academic profession. If dispute resolution has failed so badly that you feel the need to post a biased plea for intervention here then I could open a request for arbitration - the duration and scope of the conflict make that a realistic option - yet I caution you that arbitration is slow, messy, painful, and embarrassing. Would you like to proceed? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Conduct unbecoming the dignity of the academic profession? I'm sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my profession, that was my point. And if you have a complaint about my behavior in the classroom, or other aspects of my profession, please take it to my supervisor -- I will happily provide you with all the personal information you need about me to register your complaint. In the meantime I will ask that you, Isarig, and anyone else, refrain from using my profession to personally attack me. | |||
| ::In your "rebuke" you said neither side was above reproach, and '''I agreed with you.''' I did not cite the older incidents above to make the same complaint again -- I cited them to establish that Isarig's reference to my profession was out of line and followed from a historical context of such comments; that it was not just a single offhand reference. I most certainly did not expect to receive a similar insult from an administrator. I am not "forum shopping," and I resent the accusation. I cited the older incidents only to establish the history of the current dispute. Please note that when you "rebuked" me you specifically directed at my "aggressiveness" and that I , explaining why I responded to Isarig the way I did. I have backed off of being so aggressive, as , but Isarig's abusive behavior continues. I feel the most recent wikistalking is something that cannot be resolved in ]. I initiated mediation on the Juan Cole page, and we were asked by the mediator to the article, but Isarig has continued to with other users on that page even though I have backed off of it completely. Meanwhile, he stalks me on the Quran desecration pages, making arguments that seem tongue in cheek at best if not complete sophistry. I have opened an RfC on the Quran page, and presumably that will eventually reach some resolution, but what is to stop him from stalking me to another page and starting this whole mess over? I am trying to follow your advice from before and not get sucked into these wars, but he is pursuing me relentlessly. I feel that your approach is to reward the more abusive user by signalling that his abusive actions will be successful (and even joining in on the insults directed to my profession!) I don't know what you do for a living, but how would you like it if I started saying that your conduct on Misplaced Pages made you a disgrace to your profession? It doesn't matter if you are a teacher or a janitor; the insult is out of line. ] 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This has got to be one of the most blatant examples of bad faith and sheer ] I've seen on Misplaced Pages to date. ] accusing me of incivility? After , and and (accusing other editors of not being in "their right mind") - all examples of incivility from just the past 24 hours! This from an editor whose user Talk page is full of warnings about personal attacks and incivility, from numerous editors.And the nerve of accusing me of "stalking" him, after he suddenly appeared on a ] I had been editing, reverting an edit of mine and then accused me of stalking him on that page! I've warned him twice today to cease making false accusations of stalking, and I guess he believes that the best defense is an attack. ] 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] is over there, guys. Not here. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem, JP, is that I sent them to dispute resolution six weeks ago and they're back to square one. I'm one step away from giving the matter to ArbCom. Since this is here on the board anyway, does anyone have a softer alternative? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::All I'm asking for is the objectionable behavior to stop. I could go through and point out the distortions in his comment above (e.g., my first edit to the Said page was not a revert of anything Isarig did; in fact I had no idea he edited that page at all until he reverted me -- which is why I thought he was stalking me there ; or I could point out that the admonition to "grow up" - the one thing that I said that could be characterized as a personal attack in the recent disputes with him - is something I subsequently and I asked Isarig to show good faith and strike out his accusation that I was a "liar", which he did not do). There is currently mediation on one of the pages we have a dispute over, and there is now an RfC on another page -- I think individual disputes will eventually be resolved but my problem with Isarig is that it has become personal and he is now following me to unrelated pages and reverting things out of what seems to be spite. If he is willing to back off, I am too. But someone besides me ought to tell him that this behavior is objectionable.] 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have wikistalked me to at least 3 pages (], ], ]), you falsely accused me of stalking you on one of them when it was in fact you who were stalking; you falsely accused me of stalking you despite being warned not do to so; you repeatedly use uncivil language when addressing me and other editors, and have been called on it (the above 3 are merely the tip of the iceberg from the last day alone); you are continuing to misrepresent facts (i.e.: I struck out the description of your comment as a "lie" after you had struck out your own uncivil comment) - and have the gall to complain about my behavior? ] 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please stop the false accusations Isarig. I did not stalk you on any of those pages, as you are well aware. You demonstrably stalked me on two pages about Quran desecration -- the only reason you showed up on those pages was to revert my changes and to pick a fight with me in talk. The above "3" only identifies one instance of actual incivility and it is one I struck out and apologized for. (I had not seen that you struck out the word "lie" as you never mentioned it in your comments; I thank you for that, and perhaps we have some basis from which to move forward). I have the "gall" to complain about your behavior because it is beyond the pale, and because you continually threaten to report me for nothing while at the same time relentlessly violating the very rules you accuse me of violating. As I said above, all I want is for this behavior to stop. I just don't have time for this. Misplaced Pages is something I find valuable and rewarding, but my interactions with you have soured me on the whole enterprise. ] 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Every single one of those pages I have mentioned are pages where I had been editing, and you had not, and you suddenly showed up shortly after one of my edits there to either directly revert one of my edits, or introduce a change in a section I had been editing that is contradictory to what I was writing. By your own definitons, these constitute stalking. Each one of the 3 above constitute an instance of incivility, and if you don't think that saying that an editor who defends a certain position is "not in his right mind" is uncivil, then that is perhaps the root of the probelm - you have no concept of what civility means. ] 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I never showed up to a page that I had not been editing just to revert you. On the Said page I edited for the first time; I was reading student papers at the time that were about Said's work, and it occurred to me to take a look at his wikipedia page. As I stated above I had no idea you edited that page before me - I don't always examine the history page before editing a page - and as another editor has confirmed, I did not revert you -- it was you who immediately reverted me. Stalking does not mean editing the same page as someone else -- it goes to the motivation for the edits. When you are going to the page specifically to revert war against someone that you had another edit war with in the past, it is considered stalking. The MEMRI page, as you know, I first went to the talk page and engaged the discussion; I did not revert you until it became pretty clear that your position in the discussion was indefensible. And you are really distorting things on the Karsh page - my appears to have been fixing a name problem on the Juan Cole link that another user had created. My was a month later, and it was an edit that without discussion. All of that was months ago; to say I stalked you there is absolutely untenable. However, your actions on the Quran pages are clear cut -- you appeared there out of the blue and focused all your energy there on reverting warring against me, and you got quite abusive in the talk section. Your claim that I "have no concept of what civility means" is rich; it is itself more uncivil than the comment by me you claim is uncivil! When I said I don't think anyone in their right mind would go to the ] looking for information about the ], I was making a rather obvious point that the two have nothing to do with each other, not attacking a particular editor. Can you say with a straight face that if you wanted to know more about a controversial artist from the 1980s you would type in ]? It seems to be a stretch, at best, to call that a personal attack. ] 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't know what your motivations are (or were) when you appeared on the pages you had editied shortly after I did to introduce a different POV than mine. Perhaps it was all an inoccent coincidnce as you allege here - orperhaps you were wikistalking me. The point is - that the same is ture of my actions. You have no idea what motivated me to edit the Quran desecration page (and never bothered to ask), you just assume I was stalkign you given the same set of circumstance that apply to your own 3 cases of stalking. Either all of them are, or none of them are. The when I defed a certain edit (as I did), and you say that whoever defends such an edit is not in their right mind you are attacking me, and being uncivil. UIt is plain and obvious to anyone who reads yoru comments. If you want certain alleged behaviour to stop, you need to stop. ] 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I didn't say it was an "innocent coincidence" -- I said you were distorting the facts, and as I have shown, they are extremely different in the instances you cite. My POV was obviously quite different from yours long before we started editing any of this stuff, so POV difference is not evidence of any stalking. Specifically showing up to start revert wars is. I did not say you were not in your right mind; I said nobody in their right mind would come to the ] looking for information about the ]. It is plain and obvious that you are distorting my words. I am going to take a break from all of this for a while, so forgive me if I don't respond when Isarig repeats his comments. I think I've made my case. ] 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Please stop this misrepresentation. What you wrote in the edit I linked to above was "I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition" - which is what I did . I am quoting you verbatim - there is no need todistort your words - they are damning in their own right. Misrepresentations will not get you anywhere. ] 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You also linked to above, where I wrote, "The fact is, nobody in their right mind would come to this article expecting to read about the Piss christ." It is amazing that you immediately accuse me of misrepresenting things when you know for a fact that I was not. You are right about the other link but it is not a personal attack -- I said "I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition." I did not say that anyone who defends the addition is not in their right mind. You could infer that but you could also infer that I don't believe you; given our prior interactions that would be the more obvious conclusion. But in any case it is a ridiculously minor point - there is nothing "damning" about any of this. The real issue here is the aggressive edit warring, the smearing of other editors, and the wikistalking. On the first two of those charges at least, it is pretty clear that I am not the only editor who has found your actions unacceptable. ] 01:51, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| I agree with Isarig on some points and disagree on others, but his/her smearing and slander really has to stop. Isarig is far too eager to call other Wikipedians "liars" if they disagree with him and I am willing to pass on to an administrator proof that his similar past accusation against me (which remains unretracted) was false. ] 19:01, 3 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :::::::‎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) | |||
| :Isarig behaves like a pathalogical edit warrer, bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea. ] 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Abu Ali brought this to my attention, presumably since I was involved on the Said page. Obviously I don't know the full situation, but I can say a couple things: 1. Sloat's first edit on ] wasn't a revert of Isarig, but an edit of information put up by Jayjg.. 2. Isarig then reverted Sloat and has proceded to edit war against a number of editors on that page over several days, including Zero0000, Sloat, Filius Rosadis, and me. I'd note that Isarig's last comment in talk on that page is on Dec 29, which was responded to, while he has reverted the page four times since then. That's all I can really say about the situation. ] 21:16, 3 January 2007 (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 don't know about the stalking behavior, but I've certainly found Isarig to be obsessive and unreasonable on both ] and ]. Also see this example of way over-the-top ] The newbie's sin was editing his own talk page. Sheesh. Time for a wiki-holiday, Isariq. --] 21:24, 3 January 2007 (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) | |||
| *The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't been following these disputes, but I see little wrong with the 3RR warning Isarig left on Jgui's page, mentioned by Lee Hunter above. I also find Abu Ali's comment above to be way out of line, and possibly indicative of the kind of attitude that Isarig has been up against. There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general. In addition, there's often obvious sockpuppetry involved, and therefore a reminder not to bite the newbies misses the point. | |||
| :It gets tiresome having to deal with it, but I don't know what the solution is. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It wasn't the 3RR warning itself (although it was blunt to the point of rudeness) it was the strange hissy fit (see the edit comment) when the user removed the warning from his talk page. --] 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The 3RR warning was a polite explanation of the 3RR rule, and a request for self-revert, as a gesture of courtesy for a newbie. There was nothing blunt nor rude about it, and it is probably much softer than WP's standard 3RR template. You come here to complain about uncivil behavior, and you call my edits a "hissy fit"? Have you no shame? Or at least, a decent mirror? The user removed the warning with an edit summary that called a valid warning for an acknowledged 3RR violation "a bogus threat". ] 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent summary. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Excellent summary of what? Are you folks seriously suggesting that my dispute with Isarig is part of a vast antisemitic conspiracy? I don't think Abu Ali's comment was reasonable either, but it is hardly evidence that he or I are part of some kind of neo-Nazi conspiracy, and I find the accusation out of line. ] 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| ::SlimVirgin's comment "There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" is a thinly veiled and attempt to accuse me of antisemitism. As SlimVirgin is an admin on WP, he should know better. ] 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Turnabout is not really an answer, and ]. There is no justifiable reason for posting that someone is ''bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea.'' ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that SlimVirgin has repeated his accusation of antisemitism against me below ]. Any examination of my edit log will show that this personal attack is baseless and defamatory. ] 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where exactly is this accusation of antisemitism? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He wrote of "an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" and stated that "some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general." That seems pretty clear to me; what isn't clear, exactly, is who he's referring to.] 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If it's not clear that he's refering to you, then don't go out of your way to take umbrage. There was no accusation that you or anyone else is part of a neo-Nazi conspiracy. Setting that up as some kind of strawman is at least as abusive as anything anyone has said to you. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not setting up a strawman; the words he used were "increasingly concerted effort" that "often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general." I didn't take umbrage; I just asked who he was referring to. How is that abusive? ] 23:33, 3 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ::::Abu Ali, my comments were deliberately not aimed at individuals — for obvious reasons, but also because my intention was simply to highlight the problem in general. Regarding your own edits, I'm not familiar with them. My only criticism of you is that your comment above was out of order ("Isarig behaves like a pathalogical edit warrer, bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea"), and perhaps illustrative of the hostile atmosphere Isarig finds himself editing in. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If your criticisms were not aimed at me, then who precisely are these editors who you refer to. <blockquote>There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general.</blockquote> You are making a serious accusation. So as a minimum you should be specific. ] 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know how more specific I can be. There are editors whose life's work seems to revolve around making all things connected to Israel look bad. Whether you're one of them, I have no idea, because I've never looked at your edits. It gets to be a bigger problem when it involves making all things connected to Jews look bad too. I'm not going to start giving lists of examples. I've given an example below of ], but the specifics don't matter. What matters is what we do about the ''general'' issue. | |||
| ::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| ::::::Misplaced Pages is not here to be used as a platform for pro- or anti-Israel editing. Or do you disagree with that? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:56, 3 January 2007 (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)}} | |||
| :::::::::] has been banned. The specifics do matter. If there are other editors who have behaved in an antisemitic manner, name them so that the can be investigated and dealt with. If there are no others then please be so kind as to withdraw the accusation. ] 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Please note that SlimVirgin '''has still not withdrawn his accusations of antisemitism'''. Neither has he substantiated them. Is this conduct acceptable from a admin? I also note that Arbitration Committe member Jayjg describes SlimVirigins accusations as an "Excellent summary". Is this the same Arbitration Committe which is supposed to discuss the issues at hand? ] 10:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
| :::::::::::::'''Comment''' - There is occasional anti Semitism on WP. And homophobia. And racism and prejudice of all kinds, as well as appalling incivility etc. SlimVirgin as someone who is easily identified with Jewish and Israeli topics is better placed than most to notice an increase. It's our jobs to find the incidents, remove them and deal appropriately with the malfeasants, not to slap down the editor who brings the problem to our attention. --] 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here). | |||
| ::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles. | |||
| ::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading. | |||
| :Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here. | |||
| :Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — ] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm staggered that you can actually condense this whole thing down to "a bunch of editors out to get the Jews". Where the heck is that coming from? One of Isarig's (and his "teammates"') most egregious rv wars is his belligerent insistence that the Juan Cole article include a defamatory insinuation that Cole is literally a protocols-of-scion anti-semite and that the article must not include Cole's response to the charge. I'm offended by your remarks. --] 00:09, 4 January 2007 (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) | |||
| ::::::::I am sorry you feel offended. I can only repeat: I'm not familiar with this dispute, or with your edits or Abu Ali's, and I keep repeating that the individual accounts don't matter anyway. What matters is that there is an ''extremely hostile editing environment'' around some of these articles, as Abu Ali's comment to Isarig amply demonstrates. It's this general problem that we need to take seriously. Perhaps you could address that substantive point — but not with reference to any particular article or editor. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — ] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please do not engage in misrepresentations in order to make a point. The dispute you are referring to on the ] article is currently in mediation, and I have proposed and accepted several compromises there, and explictly wrote both that the specific quote you object to is not one I am insisting on, as well as stating that Cole's response to the accusations against him (from serious academics published in ]) should appear in the article. ] 00:25, 4 January 2007 (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. | |||
| My opinion on this was solicited. I personally have not had any problems with Isarig. There were some disputes between Isarig and others on the talk page for ]. There were disputes between many people on that talk page. But it seems like the disputes have been resolved in the last few days. I think, though, that part of the problem I am feeling from reading the incident noticeboard, and various talk pages, is that people are taking sides, instead of attempting to maintain ] wikipedia pages. I urge people who have strong viewpoints about the issues on such highly-charged topics dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflicts to set them aside while editing wikipedia pages. I hope people from all sides of these issues sign on to ] and pledge to work on related wikipedia pages in an NPOV way. NPOV does not favor or block viewpoints on the Arab-Israeli conflict pages. NPOV allows all significant sourced viewpoints to be put on those pages. Some people from all sides have been favoring particular POVs by selectively censoring or diminishing other sourced viewpoints. And some of the discussion on those pages has been really over-the-top instead of being focussed on the article content and meeting wikipedia guidelines. People have been making too many reversions without discussion. Resulting in slow-motion edit wars. --] 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal). | |||
| :This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. | |||
| :::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted. | |||
| :::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves. | |||
| :::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report. | |||
| :::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is. | |||
| :::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me. | |||
| :::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge. | |||
| :::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader. | |||
| :::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. · · · ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further. | |||
| :::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context"). | |||
| :::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago." | |||
| ::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request for closure=== | |||
| :I do not understand why a complaint about ''"bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea"'' is considered out of line but a complaint about ''"an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel"'' is not. I would say we'd do well to avoid both. I would add, however, that I've seen relatively few statements like the former, and when they do appear it's usually from some short-lived crank like Kiyosaki. Statements like the latter, on the other hand, are routine on articles related to Israel/Palestine, and they are quite common even from influential editors with administrative powers. | |||
| 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 == | |||
| :As for Isarig, he and I have had our share of encounters. I think he can be a wilfully obstinate, baldly ideological revert-warrior (in the current Juan Cole dispute, he is claiming that Cole's dismissal of charges of antisemitism as "outrageous" constitutes an ''ad hominem'' rebuttal, and therefore cannot be included alongside the article's coverage of said charges). Beyond that, however, I've never once even suspected that he might be stalking me, and as regards personal remarks I've never found him to give worse than he got, and I'd know. I think csloat is a good and reasonable editor, and we share a position in the Cole dispute, but I don't think the stuff about Isarig's personal attacks amount to much. Csloat says hey you'd fail my class, Isarig replies hey maybe you're not qualified to teach – this is all just rhetoric. Who says talk pages can't have a little verve and color. | |||
| {{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". | |||
| The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ] ] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ] ] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know what policy on this is, but temperamentally I'm inclined to agree with Jayjg that going around user pages gathering up a posse seems like harassment. --] 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| ::I wrote "harassment" above, where I should have said something like "bad form." Harassment has a technical meaning, and I have no idea if the action in question qualifies.--] 14:53, 4 January 2007 (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. | |||
| :::Seems to me there was full transparency to what he did, which is what we should want. ] 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Point taken, Mackan79.--] 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)-- | |||
| ===Soliciting negative comments about an editor by ] === | |||
| After a ] report about my conduct was filed, ], with whom I have had several content disputes recently, has been soliciting negative input about me from any editor I have been engaged with. Today alone, he as more than a dozen such editors to partcipate in the report. I find this to be a severe vioaltion of numerous WP policies, including ], ] and ]. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :If you examine my contibutions, you can see that I informed other users of Isarig's ], and did so openly and onwiki. I did not tell people to contibute to the ANI report or tell them what to say. The charge that I was "soliciting negative input" is false. The comment to the effect that this is a "severe vioaltion of numerous WP policies, including ], ] and ]" is baseless, and coming from Isarig, hypocritical. Salam/Peace/Shalom ] 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is silly. Abu Ali asked me what I thought, since I was involved in the incident. This report wasn't even filed by Abu Ali, was it? So, on behalf of Sloat, Abu Ali solicits comments on an ongoing ANI. This is inappropriate? ] 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm copying my comment from the thread above, as it seems to be relevant here. | |||
| 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 haven't been following these disputes, but I see little wrong with the 3RR warning Isarig left on Jgui's page, mentioned by Lee Hunter above. I also find Abu Ali's comment above to be way out of line, and possibly indicative of the kind of attitude that Isarig has been up against. There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general. In addition, there's often obvious sockpuppetry involved, and therefore a reminder not to bite the newbies misses the point. | |||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| :As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. | |||
| :::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It gets tiresome having to deal with it, but I don't know what the solution is. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:16, 3 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :::::Are you accusing these users of anti-semitic editing? If not, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. ] 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm inclined to partially agree with Isarig here. Based on the strong and large number of these messages, they appear to constitute ] for support and near-] of a particular user. I would ''strongly'' advice Abu ali to stop. You don't explicitly tell people what to say, but a message like "Have a look at ... disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think?" give the recipient a pretty damn strong hint of the response you want. ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Strong phrasing? Abu Ali wrote "Have a look at ]. What do you think?" on each page. What else was he supposed to write? If someone has been edit-warring inappropriately, how else do you uncover this other than through the comment of those who were invovled? You can point out that Abu Ali brought this to others' attention, but to act like it was some sort of breach of the peace seems pretty out there. ] 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Daveyweeb, Ali's quoting the actual title of the section on this page there, not writing those words himself, so it's a little unfair to say he's leading people on with that comment. I also don't know of any wikipedia policy against letting other users know about WP/ANI reports about users that they have had negative (or positive) interactions with in the past. Finally, Slimvirgin, can you explain what any of this has to do with antisemitism? I found your comment only tangentially related at best to the earlier dispute when you posted it the first time, but I fail to see any connection at all to the dispute here. ] 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looking around for people who you think have been in conflict with someone you don't like, then canvassing them to go beat up on him on AN/I, is harassment. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree. That doesn't appear to have occurred here. ] 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't appear to have occured here? What do you call the selective solicitation of 14 different editors who have been in conflict with me, to come and comment on a complaint against me? ] 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think that editors who have been abused by you in the past are perfectly entitled to have their say here. ] 10:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::::::::Well at least ''Abu ali'' admits it. ] 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sorry, but what is Abu Ali admitting here?--] 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Canvassing. ] 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Csloat, my concern is that there's an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel. I've been editing for over two years, and while we've always had that problem, it's clearly getting worse, and the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism are becoming ever more blurred. A good example of that was ] who turned up a few weeks ago to disrupt ]. It was obvious to many of the editors used to editing these pages that Kiyosaki was a bigot, pure and simple, but it wasn't obvious to some of the anti-Israel editors on the page. It took us some weeks to work out whose sockpuppet he was, but he was finally exposed as the account of an old-time, well-known antisemitic editor. During the time he was editing that article, however, he caused a lot of disruption and bad feeling. | |||
| ::::That example isn't isolated. We see antisemitic editors all the time trying to take advantage of anti-Israel POV to cause ill feeling and problems for editors they perceive as Jewish. Usually they out themselves over time, because they get more and more extreme, but not always. It's a problem I would hope all editors of goodwill would help to look out for, because it affects both "sides" of the Israel debate equally. It makes editors who tend toward support for Israel feel stressed and under constant attack, and it makes editors more critical of Israel look bad when they find themselves supported by antisemites. It makes Misplaced Pages look bad to have these articles veer back and forth between POVs, with bad-faith sockpuppets gleefully holding sway on talk pages and threatening regular editors with the ArbCom. The same problems crop up, for the same reason, on pages to do with Jews and Judaism. I see it as a problem we should all work on together. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree that antisemitic editors should not be welcomed here, but I just don't see how it's relevant to this particular discussion. I'm not anti-semitic or anti-Israel myself, and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else in this discussion is. True, Abu Ali's comment comparing Isarig to the Israeli military was over the top, but it wasn't anti-semitic. I think we could all stand to take a deep breath and relax here, and I'm going to volunteer to be the first to do so.] 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was Abu Ali who has tried to switch the focus to antisemitism, but it's not only a question of that. It's that there are concerted efforts to make Israel and Jews look bad, for whatever reason. The motive is sometimes antisemitism and sometimes an unexplained obsession with making sure that Israel looks evil. The motivations don't really matter just as the individual accounts don't. What matters is how we deal with it, because Misplaced Pages isn't here to make Israel or Jews look good or bad, and that was the discussion that I was trying to open up. I see the complaint against Isarig as possibly an example of the problem, given Abu Ali's inappropriate comment. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Excuse me, but it was '''you''' who brought up the false accusation of antisemitism. And I note that you have not apologised or retracted your accusation, on the grounds that you are not familiar with my edits. (look here ]) Several edit wars with Isarig and his friends from ] concern their insistence on inserting libelous accusations of anti-semitism or association with anti-semites to discredit authors who are critical of Israeli government policy. Any accusation of antisemitic behaviour should be thoroughly investigated and dealth with. But accusations of antisemitism (or of any other form of racism) should not be thrown around in a light minded manner. ] 10:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Personally I have seen a great deal of hostility coming from all sides of these debates. ] 00:10, 4 January 2007 (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) | |||
| ::::::::Agree with csloat, Abu Ali and Mackan79 on these last points. I'd add that if ''"the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism are becoming ever more blurred,"'' it is in large part because editors like Slim are tenaciously blurring them. Indeed the whole point of alluding to ''"an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel''" is precisely to blur those lines. I have been involved in a lot of contentious pages related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, where Isarig and Slim have also been heavily involved, and with the exception of a couple of sideshows produced by cranks like Kiyosaki, I have never seen this ''"concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel."'' On the other hand, on any of these pages one can find a concerted effort to blacken anything to do with individuals – Jewish, Arab, or other – who are prominently critical of Israeli occupation policies. Isarig is involved in one such blackening effort right now at the very article that precipitated the present discussion (he's arguing that the article on Juan Cole should include an accusation that Cole's writings "resonate powerfully" with the central argument of the ], but should exclude Cole's dismissal of the attack as "outrageous"). Slim has tended to either condone or actively participate in blackening efforts of this kind, often by "blurring" lines as she has done on this page, and creating an incredibly specious spectrum of guilt by association, beginning at one end with anyone who disagrees with her about the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and extending all the way out to the antisemitic fringe.--] 15:28, 4 January 2007 (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) | |||
| I think the allegations of antisemitism are actually irrelevant and beside the point here. I am an anti-Zionist Jew, and I am being stalked and harassed over the pages of Misplaced Pages by a series of one-off accounts and sockpuppets who do not like my edits to articles on Israel-related subjects. Every day, I have to search to find which articles have been vandalised with derogatory comments about me. Today, it was ], ], ] and ]. Yesterday it was ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. And there have been dozens more. The person responsible (and I'm definitely not pointing the finger at Isarig) is not making antisemitic attacks on me, but is certainly making a concerted effort to make me -- a forthright critic of Israel and Zionism -- look bad. So when SlimVirgin notes "an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel", she should recognise that it is not only supporters of Israel who face this hostility and abuse. ] 00:13, 4 January 2007 (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 sorry you've had to put up with that. I've blocked the latest account that was attacking you, and you should feel free to let me know if it happens again. You're right that the hostile environment affects everyone. The problem is not only antisemitism. It's also that some editors feel that using Misplaced Pages to paint Israel black is a legitimate way to use the encyclopedia, and of course it isn't. We end up with toxic talk pages, terrible articles, and editors who feel victimized and bullied. It would be good if good-faith editors on all sides could try to come up with a solution together. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP. | |||
| ::I agree with the second part of this entirely; I just wish people could acknowledge the extreme partisanship on all sides of these issues. In my view, there's simply an extreme shortage on the assumption of good faith. People immediately revert edits without making any attempt to follow the guidelines in ]. If they've seen something generally similar before, they simply assume its included for the same dumb reason. All in all, many seem to have stopped caring, if they ever did, about the spirit of editing on WP. I think this failure to be civil and assume good faith, much more than any latent bigotry of WP editors, is the source of hostility. ] 03:07, 4 January 2007 (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. | |||
| Abu Ali was simply performing a useful service in alerting me and others to this complaint. Isariq has been relentlessly belligerent and the displeasure of his fellow editors should be addressed. The fact that he has offended such a wide swath of the WP community is evidence of the disruption he has caused. There are many other editors who share Isarig's POV and sometimes his stubborn streak, but they don't create nearly the unpleasantness. --] 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This "useful service" has already been described by several editors here as harassment. And here you are applauding it. No more needs to be said about you or your contributions to this debate. ] 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lee even if you got the "alert", showing up here to to put the boot in regarding Isarig's belligerence, is a bad look when one could arguably call you at times and note your own hair-trigger rv button. Isarig has little patience for weak arguments and off-topic soapboxing on talk pages. If his opponents refuse to "stay down" and keep coming back with more of the same, usually peppered with personal attacks, instead of staying on point and forming ''better'' arguments, he won't let up and will keep knocking them down. The problem for them is that most of the time he's right. True, perhaps not the paragon of civility, but on the other hand, I've not seen him attempt to suppress anything contrary to his POV so long as it was reliably sourced and written according to policy. This can not be said of the editor who filed this ANI, and the "wide swath of the WP community" you refer to, are for the most part, composed of trolls like ] who you didn't see fit to comment on. I don't expect you to like the guy, but I had expected more grudging respect. ] 12:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please note Armon (who has supported) Isarig in various disputes used the phrase "he won't let up and '''will keep knocking them down'''" (my emphasis). I think that this acurately descrives Isarig's style of editing and discussion<s>, a style which Armon oviously approves of</s>. ] 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If I ''approve'' of anything, it's that from what I've seen, Isarig generally stays on point and makes '''better arguments''' than his opponents. The problem is that most people, when they lose an argument, especially when it's shown to be weak, turn their embarrassment into anger at whoever "beat" them. This in my view explains a lot of the hostility for Isarig here. I believe that, like ] below, "I don't think he ever gave worse than he got" and I've also seen cases of him giving a lot less. Should he be more civil -sure. ] 12:19, 5 January 2007 (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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well call me Isarig the Second, because I didn't see that as an example of being uncivil so much as firmly pointing out to Elizmr the absurdity of asking for "respect" for her suggestion that Cole was, as she put it, "internalizing" the themes of the protocols of Zion. I don't mind saying that anyone who proposes such an appalling and incendiary idea will lose my respect immediately. Regarding Will314159, I don't know anything about him and I don't know why you bring him up. --] 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j == | |||
| ::::She was making a ''general'' comment in response your protests (or sloats) that Cole objectively couldn't have "internalized the themes" because his is a prof. The inability to respect anybody who doesn't share one's POV is likely an insoluble problem for a lot of editors, but it's not something to be proud of. | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::As for Will314159, we edited the same pages with him for months and you didn't notice how out of line his behavior was? OK, but it amazes me. ] 12:19, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :::::Actually, that is incorrect. The only person who talked about "internalizing the themes" was Elizmr and her comment came completely from left field and out of context with the previous discussion. She wrote: "And to throw my 2 cents in, like it or not, it is a well known fact that (very unfortunately), the protocols are very prominent in the ME media. It is not suprising that ME historians and scholars would have internalized some of these themes." This after demanding that we respect her opinion. Respect is earned, it's not a God-given right. --] 20:05, 5 January 2007 (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 == | |||
| :::Armon, calling most of the people who commented here "trolls" is uncivil at best. Your claim that Isarig has not tried to suppress anything contrary to his POV is incorrect; as you know, you and he are involved in mediation on that very issue on the Juan Cole page. Your claim that I have done so is also totally inaccurate; that has not occurred.] 01:57, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ::::. It seems I'm ''more'' opposed to using a particular post from Cole's blog as a source to reframe criticism into a Cole/Karsh fight ''than he is'' -and I've also submitted 2 alternatives which I believe are better and from RSs to use instead. Poor evidence for "suppression". ] 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and . | |||
| I don't know where the podium ''is'' but well i can speak throughout the window. It's a pitty that the discussion has taken this way. In brief, i have to say that SlimVirgin's statements are not helpful and harm the community IMO. I read that and feel that there's much bias when you say there exist some antisemitic editors. I feel bad because the scope of the accusation is so large. Please give us names Slim. Abu Ali was clear on his accusation though i don't agree with the ''brutal ways'' of Isarig. That accusation was directed to one user who could of course reply or rebute that. Yes, true that Abu Ali started it but let's not forget that it was directed to someone who can easily respond to it and not to a group of ''phantoms''. The problem w/ Slim's accusations is that nobody can reply. It is a kind of unsourced edits in wiki jargon. But i will do reply and say that whether there are an orchestra made of anti-semitic editors and their fans or not over here, remains irrelevant. I will ask about names indeed especially when Slim uses the term ''obvious''. | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It should also be noted that i've heard the same accusations re anti-arab and anti-islam editors for more than a dozen of months. Have we reached a solution to catch those anti-x (in case there are) wherever they are here in wikipedia? Unfortunately No! Why? Because established editors and concerned admins think the phenomenon got only one side and is only limited to the side admins think they are victims. That's wrong, anti-x editing is well-spread around wikipedia but i don't believe there's infamous orchestras. There are individuals who carry much POV and fight for that and don't risk banning as account recreation is made easy. So let's stop making vague accusations and be concrete to try to get rid of these problems. At least, let's try it. Cheers -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 11:57, 4 January 2007 (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 ] == | |||
| For the record, I've had recent and fairly brusque encounters with Isarig, who, as outlined above is an obsessive, ideological, and pretty rude edit warrior.(on the ] page) However, much like G Dett, I don't think he ever gave worse than he got, but I haven't experienced stalking by him, to my knowledge.] 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I find this comment by Isarig to be offensive: "This 'useful service' has already been described by several editors here as harassment. And here you are applauding it. No more needs to be said about you or your contributions to this debate." | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I was one of those editors solicited. I had not had any negative interactions with Isarig, and I so noted that here. I noted that I thought some disputes had been resolved at ]. Boy was I wrong. Today, there have been 2 mass reversions. One by an admin. I would appreciate if this utterly toxic atmosphere would end. If it keeps up I will be making an incident report here , and I will be soliciting comments from others who have had interactions with these 2 editors. --] 02:48, 6 January 2007 (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. ] ]] 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 == | |||
| :: I've been recently stalked and harassed by user Isarig, so i'm not surprised that he is doing this for a long time, going through user contributions and reverting, stalking and harassing. In my observation he does not assume good faith, really rude, and leaves false edit summaries. I'm really surprised that after assaulting, stalking so many users nothing was done to prevent this kind of behaviour, which seems like his signiture move. ] 05:18, 7 January 2007 (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 ] == | |||
| ::: Mnemonic2 has been a user here for two days who has made some questionable edits; don't give that opinion too much weight. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:27, 7 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ::::User Kendrick7 was recently blocked for 3RR violations. He seems to take wikipedia too seriously constantly attacking other editors, edit warring, making baseless accusations, and in an effor to make a personal attack he lies about when i made my first edit. Also one can read all articles without registering an account. ] 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 | |||
| :::::You made your first edit a week ago, my mistake. I would love to meet some of these editors I constantly attack. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy | |||
| === Durova blows the referee whistle === | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again | |||
| This particular dispute has always been tough to adjudicate. The main participants are well informed and highly articulate, yet some of their methods violate policy in ways I rarely see among editors who know how to spell. The mediation looks like it may indeed succeed at its own narrow aim. Yet the dispute is larger and spreading. I find it oddly appropriate that the ] biography has joined the affected pages: during his years at ] that English department had a reputation as ''street brawling for Ph.D.s''. | |||
| In specific reply to csloat, my rebuke spoke to that dichotomy. The debate about libel and slander touched an area I studied in graduate school and your knowledge of that subject does appear to be professorial as does your articulate writing style. Topically these are high level discussions. That contrasts with forum-shopping, personalizing disputes, bad faith assumptions, incivility, edit warring, and deceptive complaints - behaviors more characteristic of a weak undergraduate. My criticism has nothing to do with how you conduct a classroom and everything to do with this website where expert contributors in the humanities are uncommon and too many of the weak undergraduates I normally referee are eager to assume the worst of any authority figure. If the opinion hurts your feelings I am sorry; I know of no milder way to express this earnest evaluation. | |||
| ] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This does not, however, vindicate the other parties. Normally I would wait for mediation to work but this particular conflict has seeped onto too many pages and accumulated new disputants as it spreads. The main question I confront now is not whether but how to open an arbitration request: who and what are involved? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 06:21, 4 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :Are you canvassing opinions here? ] 10:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks == | |||
| ::For the record I think both SlimVirgin's veiled insinuation and Abu Ali's outrageous rhetoric are damaging to this whole enterprise. For me, this issue boils down to the speed with which Isarig assumes bad faith, makes and then repeats baseless allegations. From my own experience: A secondary issue is the fact that the Wiki guidelines on reliable sources are frankly open to interpretation, for example, terms like "expert" are weasley worm-can openers and the massive "previously published work" loophole doesn't help the issue. Finally, I, for one, was not "rounded up" by anybody. Cheers! ] 15:13, 4 January 2007 (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? | |||
| I think arbitration is premature here. Most of the issues being discussed stem from the ] article, which is in mediation, and good progress is being made there due to the efforts of ]. The broader issues brought up by ] - the hostile editing environment surrounding Israel and Jewish-related articles may warrant a a differnt approach, but agian, I'm not sure Arbitration is the solution there. ] 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Then I'll hold off for now. I'll also caution you about disruption, Isarig. The only reason I haven't blocked you for the Quran desecration controversy/Piss Christ quarrel is because the waters are muddy. Everybody, please slow down and disengage. And try not to graft the Arab/Israeli conflict onto this already messy dispute. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 02:03, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| Isarig is one of a small group of editors (the others are Amoruso and Shamir1) who ''endlessly'' push a particular pov into mid-east-related articles. A large fraction of their edits are reverts, usually to reinstert the junk they have copied from worthless propagandistic sources. It would be a tough assignment to find any substantial improvement to any article due to their efforts over months. The proper place for this discussion is before the arb ctte. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:24, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :The remark above is a personal attack against three editors and should be removed by the editor who wrote it. ] 10:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The remark is not a personal attack, it is a complaint. I don't know Amoruso and Shamir1, but it is a valid comment on Isariq's work. --] 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Zero's remarks are based on evidence that has cited many times in talk pages and in this . Isarig has become particularly disruptive. As well as removing well-sourced information, for example , he posts abusive fake "warnings" on talk pages and refuses polite requests that he restore ]-compliant material. If action is not taken Isarig should at least be warned that he must abide by policy in future. Misplaced Pages simply doesn't need editing of this standard. --] 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The disputed remark looks like a comment on behavior, not character or personality, and I accept it as such. I have cautioned Isarig in this thread. I'm not going to open an arbitration request right now, although I would probably do so if petitioned in the future, and any editor in good standing can initiate a request themselves at ]. If someone chooses to do so now and seeks my advice in crafting the request I will provide it. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following: | |||
| ::I have just checked Isarig's edit log and it looks like this discussion and the ''threat'' of arbitration has brought an impovement in Isarig's conduct. Long may it contnue. I agree that there is no need for arbitration right now. But someone should keep an eye on the Israel related pages to ensure that the truce is maintained. ] 11:45, 6 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :: I've been recently stalked and harassed by user Isarig, so i'm not surprised that he is doing this for a long time, going through user contributions and reverting, stalking and harassing. In my observation he does not assume good faith, really rude, and leaves false edit summaries. I'm really surprised that after assaulting, stalking so many users nothing was done to prevent this kind of behaviour, which seems like his signiture move. Sorry i first posted this at the wrong place. ] 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Comments by Locke Cole == | |||
| ::: I can't be the only one who finds it ironic that we have a message complaining about Isarig going through a user's contributions list right below a message by another user admitting to going through Isarig's contributions list. Both sides need to gain perspective and disengage. - ] 06:38, 7 January 2007 (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}} | |||
| ==Meatpuppetry and tag-team edit-warring== | |||
| 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: | |||
| ] has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notably ] and ], where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (random unverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringe sectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here and , , do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent reverts over long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptive behaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politically inflammatory minority views (). Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, he decided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to a certain group of ideologically biased users, such as ], ] (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) and ](who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage") to try to revert-war there, which they did. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user named ]. This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediately posted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again . The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debate over the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not on scholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) in ] ] and ].They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users like ], ], ] and ] but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an underground ]/] website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted . This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.<b>]]</b> 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}} | |||
| ::More instances of such behaviour:] 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::What an accusation ! The Indian contributors have been tag-teaminig on these Pakistani articles for many months before I got 3RR and the ] was "protected" for more than three months. Now that I have some Pakistani contributors involved to represent the Pakistani perspective they have started this accusation. One can simply look at the history of these articles to see tag-teaming by Indian contributors before Pakistani contributors. I have invited many of my friends to wikipedia that does not mean that this "puppetry". One can accuse the Indians of the same regarding these Pakistan related articles. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::] 02:02, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :::Especially when I live thousands of miles from every other Indian user.<b>]]</b> 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :::] is a Hindu nationalist who is constantly adding Devangari texts to Pakistan related articles and tagging their talk pages with Indian banners claiming them for India. He was quick to welcome a user who abused me on my user page. And look at his choice of words. Welcoming my abuser is a clear indication of his own behavior. I personally do not accept any consensus which is developed by a bunch of like-minded Hindu-biased users who are always aggressively scaring away whoever tries to interfere their propaganda based intentions. Most of their citations are from those websites which promote Hindutwa. They never accept any input from any user who does not agree with them. They insist on adding Indian script to Pakistan and Islam related articles and have been indianizing all such articles with twisted words and dubious citations. They force other users into accepting their citations no matter how questionable they are. Just look at their talk pages and you'll clearly see their unity in promoting Hinduism in Pakistan and Islam related articles, and Indianizing all such articles. They have literally occupied Pakistan related articles and won't let anybody other than members of their lobby make any major changes. If someone resists their propaganda agendas they persecute that user with full force and unity. ] 03:16, 5 January 2007 (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)}} | |||
| ::Several pages got protected due to the edits of this group (] and ] to name 2). In retaliation, Siddiqui has been editing tendentiously, using inflammatory section titles and other acts of disruption across wikipedia articles, such as & . User ] most definitely the same user as Siddiqui is helping him revert-war] 06:01, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| Szhaider and Siddiqui are absolutely right.Bakman and other Indian users play edit wars by editing in groups,therefor being careful not to break the ].Nothing but a clear form of meatpuppetry.Bakaman and his fellow imperialists have made racist remarks towards Pakistani users as seen on the ] talk page. | |||
| If Bakaman and his fellow indian imperialists can't get have their own way around,they then go running to Indian administrators to assist them in their crusade against Pakistani wikipedians. | |||
| Right now Bakaman and fellow imperialist ] plan on writing an article on "Pakistani textbooks"(to be specific textbooks used by a small group of religious fanatics in Pakistan) to stereotype us and brand us as extremists.This can be seen ].They had done this before when they created an unsourced article on Christians in Pakistan which had been deleted yesterday upon my request. Unfortunately they clearly outnumber Pakistani wikipedians and are able to edit war in groups to keep all Pakistani items categorized as "Indian" despite my efforts to make it "SOuth Asian" to keep it neutral. | |||
| I tried to revert the article on ],but they keep changing it to "Indian" and keeping all refferences to Pakistan out including consistantly vandalizing the Pakistani tag I place on the talkpage. | |||
| And due to the lack of diversity among administrators,they have a clear advantage over us. | |||
| The alligations Bakaman states are false.Bakaman is racist towards Pakistanis(particularly Muslim). | |||
| His fellow imperialists(and possibly him)are part of a racist site called ].They make disruptive edits to Pakistani articles such as ] by sticking their ] into them.They consistantly edit war on Pakistani history articles and try to keep out all refferences to Pakistan,again in large numbers to keep from violating the ].And for your information,Pakhub is '''not''' Islamaist.This is another part of Bakaman's propaganda.Any attempts to revive Pakistani history is automatically claimed as "Islamist" by Bakaman and his fellow imperialists.Please read the articles on Pakhub to decide for yourself. | |||
| They have also unleashed nationalistic bots and tagged Pakistani and Iranian related articles to Indian categories.Their consistant efforts to keep all consensus out(with the assistance of biased admnistrators) is a clear violation of wikipedia's neutral and no propaganda policies.] 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your paranoia amazes me... hope you understand accusing admins is not the best way to present your case here. They were made admins precisely becasue they HAVE made productive contributions to the project unlike you who seems to be interested in removing project tags from talk pages. As for Panini call him a Pakistani before any non-Indian historian and see how they'll laugh at you.<b><font color="saffron">]</font></b><sup><b><font color="red">]</font></b></sup> 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::This after Siddiqui spammed talk pages , proving Bakaman's point totally. ] 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history? | |||
| *:Or is that just something that isn't done? – ] (]) (]) 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 == | |||
| :::I am getting Pakistani editors to protect the Pakistan related pages being filled with Indian propaganda. I am also urging my friends to join wikipedia and contribute to Pakistan related pages. The Indians have been team-tagging and reverting any changes to Pakistan related articles. The new Pakistani contributors will soon be able to give balanced view of Pakistan-India disputes. Indian have the right to give thier side of opinion so Pakistanis also have the same right. The Indians have filled Pakistani articles with Indias propaganda. Any change to reflect Pakistan view point is reverted and the Indian contributors team tag to defeat smaller number of Pakistani contributors. Hopefully this will change as I have been trying hard to convince many Pakistanis to join wikipedia and contributue to the articles that interests them. | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::] 07:04, 5 January 2007 (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) == | |||
| ::: Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground. You by your own admitance are guilty of meatuppetry. <b><font color="saffron">]</font></b><sup><b><font color="red">]</font></b></sup> 08:45, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| }} | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not a blog, where you can put down any information, and because you have a few admins on your side, nobody can question your actions. | |||
| The Pak tag belongs anywhere, where there are Pakistani ancestors involved. The fact is, Panini had nothing to do with modern Indians. If it hadnt been for some users here, the article would still have a ROI flag. (check history). So maybe you guys should pull yourselves together and stop defending biased information, backed up my some Indian written sources. | |||
| If you dont want to call people of Pakistan, Pakistanis, what else do you want to call them? Indians. I see...makes no sense, but since you have admins on your side, who are we to question? ] 13:45, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| P.s | |||
| ] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| I provided 5 .edu sources of Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. Even then you question this. This obviously shows you have no regard for correct information being put on Misplaced Pages, but only information where you can cram the word "India" in as many places as you can. ] 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course the fact tha google uses Ancient India 880 times to one compared to the fictitious "ancient Pakistan" seems to be lost on you, as well as nadirali's hallucinations of me being female, when I am obviously male. You're right WP isnt a blog where one can discuss fairy-tales like the "ancient history of Pakistan".<b>]]</b> 23:19, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| ::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| First I thought Google was the only argument you could come up with. Now I know it. | |||
| Ok...let me make it very simple. Why do you think we are arguing about this? Because people are misinformed, and since they are misinformed, they use it more often. If Ancient Pakistan came up with as many Google results, then this argument wouldnt be taking place, now would it? | |||
| And your Google argument is not going to cancel out any official educational sources. ] 23:39, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| Actually here is one for you.<br /> | |||
| Islam gives 94 million google results.<br /> | |||
| Hinduism gives 8.7 million results.<br /> | |||
| Wait a minute. That must mean...<br /> | |||
| ] 23:43, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| :Oh my god. christian gives 318 million, muslim gets 58 million. Official educational sources? Pul-leez. I have 800 "official educational sources" to each geocities site and university of oregon blog you have.While were at it, do look at .<b>]]</b> 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::May be google is not the right place. We need papers :) | |||
| ::{{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}}. | |||
| ::Now make an informed decision.--]-]-] 13:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.'' | |||
| ::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. | |||
| ::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.'' | |||
| ::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. | |||
| ::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album | |||
| :::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ | |||
| :::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ] ] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} === | |||
| Might have something to do with, Christian being a name, and the search for Christian and Christianity is integrated. | |||
| But you failed to see my point. Google cannot be used to prove anything. | |||
| I provided .edu sources for Ancient Pakistan being valid, unless you can provide .edu sources quoting Ancient Pakistan is Not valid, till then, please dont mention google again. <b>]]</b> 13:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Of interest to this discussion would be the edits at ] by a "group" (for reasons unknown) where a third individual "AMbroodEY" has surfaced on third consecutive day, after "Rumpelstiltskin223" (on 4 Jan) and "Dangerous-Boy" (on 5 Jan), continuing the edit war, reverting exactly the same cit. (i.e. ]!) and adding completely irrelevant and extremely POV links, while disregarding mediation attempts. --<i><font color="green">]</font><b><font color="blue">]</font></b><sup>]</sup></i> 15:02, 6 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ]! Partition of India has been in my watchlist for over two years. I didnt revert your stuff, i was building upon D-Boy's version. Whats more dont game ANI, this is not the forum really to discuss this...<b><font color="saffron">]</font></b><sup><b><font color="red">]</font></b></sup> 17:58, 6 January 2007 (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 | |||
| :Not correct. Look at your reverts plus challenge to my edits. Three people (all appearing above) reverting the same reference in three days is no conincidence, but perfect example of tag-team if not meatpuppetry.--<i><font color="green">]</font><b><font color="blue">]</font></b><sup>]</sup></i> 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its called reverting vandalism.<b>]]</b> 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Welcome to the fourth editor--<i><font color="green">]</font><b><font color="blue">]</font></b><sup>]</sup></i> 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh no a ] thinks there is a ].<b>]]</b> 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Correction, four ] in three days!--<i><font color="green">]</font><b><font color="blue">]</font></b><sup>]</sup></i> 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I edited the page much before three days ago, and added quite a bit in the way of references. Calling me a troll lol. Looks like noone but banned users, "restrorers of Pakistan's ancient heritage" and their ] friends agree with that.<b>]]</b> 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is certanly a case of (anti)Pakistani and/or (anti)Islamic phobia and memory loss for which I don't no cure but to hope for improvement.--<i><font color="green">]</font><b><font color="blue">]</font></b><sup>]</sup></i> 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why did so many articles all of the sudden get protected by the same admin?--] 18:08, 6 January 2007 (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 == | |||
| :Mhm Islescape, POV links. Do tell us about unicorns and East Dakota while you're at it. Zora is no mediator, she's the one calling for the article to become "Pakistani POV" and whining about "Indian Imperialist bots" and "Hindutva kooks".<b>]]</b> 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| * {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}} | |||
| * {{ip|112.202.57.150}} | |||
| * {{ip|186.154.62.233}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This is the kind of Admins I have to put up with, who are on a clear mission to ruin just about everything I post.<br /> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ] | |||
| This is what he posted at first (about my PakHub article):<br /> | |||
| "Has 36 Google hits! AFD or Prod it and it will be deleted very soon. Might even get away if you put a speedy notice"<br /> | |||
| "Regarding Pakhub, I don't understand your "evil glee" comment, but I can assure you if you place a speedy tag, someone will delete it without hesitation. And thanks for your christmas greeting. I wish you likewise and a happy new year."<br /> | |||
| "As you see, I've deleted it. If they complain, I may revive and send it to AfD. Then everyone (not just Indians) will vote speedy delete and they'll realise that it doesn't deserve to be on Misplaced Pages. Have a good day."<br /> | |||
| == Urgent need for page protection on BLP == | |||
| Even his buddy admitted this (Dboy) "why do i sense an small little evil glee from your words?"<br /> | |||
| {{atop | |||
| And just to inform everyone. He deleted my article without telling me a word. The article was deleted twice, and I still had no idea who deleted it and why it was being deleted. | |||
| | 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) | |||
| <b>]]</b> 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| :You article was a freaking ad! It was nothing but shameless promotion.--] 14:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Bottom line is Bakaman and his army of meatpuppets are loosing control of the articles due to Siddiqui's good efforts and that's what scares him now. | |||
| As Szhaider pointed out that they won't let anybody except for members of their own lobby edit the articles.Any edits are reverted within mintues.] 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==JzG's personal attack== | |||
| Revision as of 15:54, January 4, 2007 (edit) | |||
| JzG (Talk | contribs) | |||
| (→Deep breaths :) - Um, right.) | |||
| ← Older edit Revision as of 19:20, January 4, 2007 (edit) (undo) | |||
| JzG (Talk | contribs) | |||
| (→Deep breaths :) - update) | |||
| Newer edit → | |||
| Line 26: Line 26: | |||
| :--> Also, you '''are not hated'''; everyone is welcome on ], and so long as you go about it ], we can have these users answer for their actions. ]] <sup><nowiki>] • ]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)</em> :--> Also, you '''are not hated'''; everyone is welcome on ], and so long as you go about it ], we can have these users answer for their actions. ]] <sup><nowiki>] • ]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| - * Your hysterical outpourings on ] are likely to achieve very little other than to ensure that '''''you are dismissed as a crank'''''. Would you like to go back and try again, citing ] and without the capitalisation? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) + * I removed your reports from ] since there is no evidence of attacks provided. In future please bear in mind that we need, at the very least, information as to where the supposed attacks occurred. I did spend some time looking into it but the only aggression I could find was from you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| 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 | |||
| :...Are you asking a question, or what? --] 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| , , . | |||
| ::I think that Yrgh believes that JzG's comments above are a personal attack and he wants to rant about it! ] | ] 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh yeah. The top of this page says "This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department" for a reason. Apparently you know about ] to report personal attacks, you can take this there but if all he did was call you a crank, I seriously doubt any uninvolved admins will care enough to block him or whatever. --] 00:05, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| For the record, this user has made a habit out of accusing... everyone... of personally attacking him (and in a <del>rather</del> disruptive way at that) after he was confronted by multiple editors about a series of dubious edits. He has previously been mentioned on AN/I ]. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And why wasn't anything done about it then? D: And at what point is the community's patience exhausted with Mr. Yrgh?—] (]) 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :.—] (]) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was just marvelling at that myself. --] 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked indef per that latest ... marvel. Can't say I've ever seen anything quite like ''that''. --] 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Strong, 100% speedy endorse blocking this worthless twat. I wasted Actual Time checking out his baseless report. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** Calm down. Of course, I support blocking this user, but it ''is'' a personal attack to call someone a "worthless twat". There's no need to start calling people names, even though they are incredibly frustrating. '']'' 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I've already posted to Guy's user talk page. It seems out of character and I hope that was a typo for ''twit''. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****But in reality, it's not out of character at all. ] 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Yup. --] 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Hell freezes over=== | |||
| I'd better put this under a new section. Based on ] post above and the subsequent diffs, which do check out, I've left him an imminent block warning for incivility. It's the dead of night in his part of the world right now and he hasn't edited since, so I'll wait for him to log on and respond, but basically what I've said is that I'll block him for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language. I've never blocked an admin before - much less one I respect as much as him - but it would be a double standard if I overlooked this evidence. I welcome the feedback of other users regarding this decision. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll support that even, though I feel sheepish doing so. Guy seems like a very good editor, but I read the above evidence the same way you do, especially in light of ]. Can't be allowed, even (especially?) from a respected admin. --] 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I can't support such an action. While I am strongly opposed to editors (''especially'' admins) making uncivil comments, I don't think that blocking is the right way to go about this; all it's going to do is create bad feelings. In this case, an apology from Guy would be suffice, provided he does not repeat his behavior. '']'' 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, but I interpreted Durova's actions as asking for apology and change in behavior first and foremost. The block would only be if he refuses, which would be kind of surprising. --] 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd certainly accept an apology. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I am ''strongly'' opposed to an admin blocking another admin. Always have been opposed to this, always will. It's just not ... done. Take it to ], even ], but don't directly block another fellow admin. '']'' 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(edit conflict)I don't see how a civility block would be anything other than punitive in Guy's case. Guy has had a sharp tongue as long as I've known him, and (1) he isn't particularly ''more'' likely to be uncivil in the next x hours than he is in the n hours after that, and (2) I seriously doubt that a block will cause him to change his manner of interaction. IMHO, if people are really concerned about his behavior, engaging on his talk page or an RFC would be the way to go. ] 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you can gather consensus at ] for the exception ''if you're uncivil and get away with it this policy doesn't apply anymore'' then I'll strikethrough my warning. The problem editors habitually claim that sysops are a clubby little bunch who violate policy with impunity. Well if none of us get blocked except by ArbCom, then to quote ] ''All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.'' If I ever make the same mistake then by all means give me a block warning too, and an actual block if I don't back down. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Who are these editors? I've seen people complain that a few admins get away with too much, but I've never heard anyone but ] style conspiracy theorists claim admins as a whole are a priveleged elite. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Cplot never made any such claims about administrators being a privileged elite. Cplot complained about federal propagandists on the wiki, many of whom are not admins (for example, MONGO thankfully). Why not try to provide a diff showing something Cplot did wrong. That would be an interesting exercise. --] 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh good, a ].--] 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Admins has no special authority or exemption. The blocking policy applies to them too. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| WTF? Someone has a bit of a meltdown from dealing with crap, and you threaten to block him? Instead of saying "what's going on, can I help", you threaten him? Instead of providing a support system for the people who end up having to deal with the flood of bullshit that comes their way, we use ultimatums? Sounds great - when someone is buckling under the strain, let's kick them? Durova, I must say, I am ''deeply'' disappointed in you. I most certainly oppose your use of ultimatums and threats against one of our hardest-working admins. ] 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Ahem ... calm down, please. '']'' 04:37, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| ::When I saw it in one post I presumed it was a typing error. After I saw it in six more over several different days and conversations I acted. An eighth example has surfaced since then. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:42, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :(edit conflict) That's an insane thought process, and one that ]. "I'm dealing with trolls, so I'm above policies!" is the worst thing an admin can possibly say, short of maybe "**** off you ****ing ****er I'm ****ing blocking everyone because I ****ing feel like it". Nothing, at all, should cause you to be placed above policies. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 04:38, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| ::Really. If "inability to deal with stress without calling people names and swearing at them" came up in an RFA, most of us would vote "oppose". And I ''don't'' think that of Guy; I think he's a lot saner than the wacko you're describing. --] 04:41, 5 January 2007 (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 == | |||
| ::::Hi all. Not sure if I'm even allowed to post here but I found ANI to be a reasonable place so far. From the purely linguistic perspective - twit twat and twot are about the same in the context of heated discussion and certainly in common usage. But I learned English in Northumbria if you can call it English:) I do have to apologise for that in daily life quite often. Whether heated discussion or common usage are allowed from anyone on Misplaced Pages is still uncertain to me. I deal with it by trying to write really flat and boring in discussion. ] 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::: Howay, man, it's nee big deal, like :o) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:48, 5 January 2007 (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 == | |||
| I don't agree with JzG's comments, but ... haven't we learned recently that blocks aren't a good way to deal with personal attacks made by established users? --] 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Ugh, <s>we're</s> you're in a little pickle here. <s>We</s> You get blasted for admin cabaling if we don't, and we get into that situation if we do. I'd also like to say that I am utterly confused as to why "twat" is offensive; that's a nickname my mom uses for my sister, and I don't see any offensiveness. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}} | |||
| ::It's ]. According to ] it can also be a form of ], but I've never heard it used that way. --] 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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> | |||
| :::Um... okay, that was more than I really needed to know. Just keep in mind that he may very well be using my definition, not an obscene one. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (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> | |||
| ::::Yikes. I expected you to just mouse over that link; it didn't occur to me until just now that you might just click the thing. That's really embarrassing and I'm sorry. --] 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, oops, I didn't make it clear that I didn't actually click it. I actually caught it in the diff. But I still know what the word means. Don't be embarassd. Have a smiley face. {{P}} -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 05:12, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :Actually, it doesn't include me, because I'm not an admin, meaning I'm somewhat insulated from whatever happens. Yay. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 04:53, 5 January 2007 (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 == | |||
| :Guettarda has it right. I realise that it is now all the rage for admins to be the manners police, but while we're going through this phase, it would be nice to remember that blocking people who are not a threat to the project hasn't always been something we expected admins to do, and especially to do casually. I really do appreciate the fact that we're a lot quicker to block trolls and lunatics these days, but we do have a whole dispute resolution process designed for facilitating community input on the behaviour of valued contributors. ] 04:55, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ::It's more than that. Most of us don't spend much time dealing with troublesome editors. Dealing with them on the scale that Guy (and many others) do is very stressful. If someone has a few meltdowns over a couple months, then maybe it's a sign that we, as a community should be more supportive of them; seeing stuff like that the correct reaction is to say "what's wrong, how can we help" or maybe "take a break from that stuff and concentrate on what's fun". As long as our aim is to retain hardworking volunteers, the correct action is ''never'' to approach a good editor like a disruptive troll. If they are feeling the strain, all it does is say to them "your contribution isn't worth shit". It's most likely to exacerbate the problem. The ''last'' thing you want to do is come at someone with threats and ultimatums. It will almost certainly fail to produce the desired result. In addition, in general we cut trolls more slack than Durova cut Guy. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. The threats were totally out of line. ] 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| :::He violated ], and if most of the words I've never heard are similar in definition to his word "twat" (assuming he meant them that way, of course) , he violated it pretty badly. Even then, if I told people to "fuck off", I would most certainly be told to stop in a heartbeat. While admins should not be approached like trolls, they should also not get preferential treatment over everyone else in that respect. And dealing with trolls does ''NOT'' justify swearing at people. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, he didn't. You violated AGF - maybe you should be blocked for that?? There are seven links provided above. The first one shows no incivility - he says to someone "''you have the brass neck to come here making demands? The short answer is: go away''". No one says we have to suffer fools. In the second case, there's nothing there that isn't calling a spade a spade. In the third he says "what the fuck"...oooh, my ears are burning, he used a swear word. Hmm - maybe I need to be threatened with a block for my "WFT" higher up the page. In the fourth case, he says to Fys "and I want you to fuck off". Fys has been behaving like an idiot ever since he played chicken with the arbcomm and got them to blink. He's saying "quit bugging me". Not incivil, and it's totally wrong to take it out of context. In the fifth case, again, he is using "fuck off", but seriously, calling that incivil is nothing but prudery about "the f-word". Did you miss the bit about Misplaced Pages not being censored for minors? And the sixth example isn't incivil, and it isn't aimed at anyone in particular so how can it be taken as anything serious? As for the word "twat" - that tempest in a teapot is nothing more than a collective failure to assume good faith. Maybe you should just block yourselves for violating AGF and be done with it. ] 05:47, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :::::Um... In case you didn't notice, I'm the first one who brought up that "twat" might mean something else. And you are not in any way explaining why what he did was ''civil'', you're explaining why it was ''justified''. Which is good, except that glosses over what I said, that incivility ''isn't'' justified, just by the fact that the point of the incivil comment is correct. You can say things which are right in an incivil way. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places == | |||
| :::::Check the edit summary of the first diff. ] 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| (edit conflict) Guys and gals, we are not policing words (Misplaced Pages is not censored) we are policing personal attacks having significant venom to hurt people. For the Fuck's sake it is absolutely fuckingly acceptable to use the bloody old-English word ''fuck'' to emphasize an idea or an emotion. On the other hand it is absolutely unacceptable for an admin to engineer a phrase that would unnecessary hurt people even if the phrase has no colorful words and even if it does not formally violate the principle to comment on contributions not the contributors. I would dare say that in the phrase "useless twat" I am much more concerned with the word ''useless'' than with the word ''twat''. Most of the Guy's replies here are examples of using colorful words but not personal attacks. Some might be (although I guess calling a person who delibeartely choose to behave as troll ''useless'' should not hurt his emotions. I guess we are better off by examining the situation more careful with Guy present rather than issuing blocks. I trust Durova to discuss it with Guy and to make a right decision. ] 05:53, 5 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :Personal attacks are different from incivility. For instance, while dismissing all ideas someone comes up with saying "**** those ideas" is not a personal attack, it's certainly incivil. Similarly, I wouldn't quite say anything he did constitutes a personal attack, but it does constitute incivility. Enough to block? I don't know. But personal attacks should be cause for aggressive blocking, period. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 06:00, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ::There's space between "friendly and polite" and block-worthy incivility. If we couldn't tell someone "leave me alone" (viz., "fuck off") without the thought police breathing down our necks, then I for one would be out of here long ago. ] 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Leave me alone" is substantially different from "**** off". Just because Misplaced Pages isn't censored doesn't mean swearing at someone is less offensive. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, they aren't "substantially different". ] 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]'s "Serious examples" includes "Profanity directed at another contributor." --] 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, which would be "fuck you", not "fuck off". Quit Wiki-Lawyering. This is nonsense. ] 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Seems to me some folks need to get a fucking life. Wiki isn't a fucking haven for the fucking language Nazi's and this fucking inane proccupation with "so and so huwt my poow widdle feelings" just shows how utterly divorced from fucking reality Wiki is. Personally, I think Wiki could use a nice case of occassional whoop-ass rather than concern over whether a troll's feelings are hurt, and a nice case of reality when ideas are simply baltently fucking stupid. So, that being said, I suppose Durova will want to block me next for actually speaking my mind. Go for it, I really don't care. Wiki at its worst is simply a nattering bunch of officious, pietistic (Wiki as religion) people worried far less about the declining content of the encylopedia and worried far more about creating the equivalent of a Utopian dictatorship. Just remember, Utopia means "nowhere" and Wiki in many cases exists in a netherworld far removed from the real world. ] 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| :::::::Thank you very much for the aggression, but I'm not wiki-lawyering. I was offering a piece of information to see whether it had any bearing on the discussion; I think your point about the meaning of "directed at" is a good one, so now I'm satisfied. Go back to insulting people who ''don't'' agree with you. --] 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — ] ] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places? | |||
| ::::::::To whom are you responding? ] 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Guettarda. --] 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==TPA for 83.106.86.95== | |||
| ::::::::::] is the most useless policy on wikipedia. A little incivility doesnt hurt Misplaced Pages. Guy's comments were just an outburst of anger, and I've seen good users blocked for even less by the ]. I myself deal with ] on a daily basis. On my first month on wiki I was booked by the thought police four times in cases all brought by banned users (arbcom ruling "Hkelkar"). Admins that spend all day threatening wikipedians instead of trolls are usually hated by users that deal with ] and shouldn't have the "holier than thou" attitude when looking at a situation.<b>]]</b> 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|83.106.86.95}} | |||
| Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrary section break === | |||
| :If admins are to have any authority in preventing the increasing coarseness of discourse here, we must begin with ourselves. However, as much as I respect Durova's opinion on nearly everything else, it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors (I have my share for sure). Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago. ] 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we can all agree admins should not be blocked as they have been chosen by the community to be above Misplaced Pages's policies. This is the universal view. ] 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nobody likes a smartass. As a matter of interest, I started an admin misconduct RFC a while ago over violations of block policy that resulted in the admin voluntarily desysopping himself after a wave of negative responses to his behavior. I'm perfectly willing to take strong action at the appropriate time. This is not yet the time for strong action. ] 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Okay, so the result of the long, drawn out, and heated ({{emot|:)}}) debate is that we will wait to see how Guy reacts, and I am 99.999% sure he will make an apology. And then, let's just drop the whole matter, hmmm? (BTW, for the record, this is my 3000th edit.) '']'' 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Amen. --] 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Heh, "Nobody likes a smartass." If I had a dollar for every time my dad said that to me... anyway, It's a pretty simple thing, really: | |||
| :::::# Does ZisGuy sometimes shoot his mouth off? Well, prety much yes. | |||
| :::::# Does ZisGuy also work his arse off? Definately yes. | |||
| :::::# Does #2 make #1 ok? Anyone wanting to come right out and '''say''' that the rules are different for admins/hard workers/FAC writers? No, I thought not. | |||
| ::::: I've not seen the bordeline tetchyness JZ has demonstrated amount to any serious problem. Yet. Durova's heavy-handedcomments had the correct idea but were woefully handled. Can we all get back to work now, and deal with this ] it turns into a problem? | |||
| :::::<font color="black">]</font> 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::: Congrats to Durova for being bold, and for coming here for a san-check before acting. And agree with most of the above, blocks should be preventative, not punative. JDZ made a mistake. I'm confident he'll realise that and lower the temperature in future. If not, then maybe he should hand back his bit. But a punative block is the wrong way to express an opinion. Regards, ] 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* If I understand what you're saying, does that mean that we don't ''accept'' bad behavior from these contributors, just that we (perhaps) handle it differently? - <font color="black">]</font> 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you please help? == | |||
| :::::::::Yes, well put. Where a user's only contributions are negative, a perma-block solves the problem and doesn't cost us anything. Where a user is mostly good with some bad, a perma-block solves the problem, at great cost. A temporary block applied to halt a rampage is a thing of beauty. But a punative block doesn't solve anything, and probably costs us dearly. In this case, I expect him to be sensible. If not, well, there are other options. Regards, ] 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly. | |||
| :@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? – ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works. | |||
| ::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == POVPushingTheTruth == | |||
| Yes, I'm also one of the admins who puts myself on the front line in terms of dealing with difficult editors. I wouldn't retain much credibility in asking them to be civil if I were uncivil myself or if I countenanced obscene put-downs from another administrator. The strongest thing I have going for me when I handle a hard case isn't the sysop tools: it's integrity. The central question I asked myself is ''If I saw exactly these words from an editor of equal value to the project who wasn't a sysop, what would I do?'' It's a tough call - some of you may disagree with it - and I trust that when Guy logs on he will quickly demonstrate through his inherent good sense that most of our worries are needless. And I have to add that the accusation I've acted punitively is a bit of an ] foul. I thought people knew me better than that. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves. And by the way, Guy is southern English, as I am, and we don't really use "twat" for "vulva" much. It would translate into American as a slightly milder "asshole", I suppose. It wouldn't be ''very'' offensive. It has more of a flavour of silliness. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Durova should though be supported here (although no surprises that there is practically a queue forming not to). It's ''not'' acceptable for admins to display behaviour that others would be blocked for. They're not above the law. And if you can't deal with twats without telling them to fuck off, maybe giving up dealing with twats would be the best approach. ] 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| :Are punative blocks a useful way to deal with past incivility by anyone, admin or otherwise? I suspect it's like rubbing a puppies nose in 'it', useful if you can do it at the time but harmful if you do it long after the event. The message we want to send is "what you did was not acceptable." A bonus block doesn't help get that message through, IMHO, it distracts. Regards, ] 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolitely. Did anyone notice the earlier discussion here and the open case at ]? How many times are we going to discuss these issues? Double Jeopardy anyone? If we do it again and again maybe we can make a case for an indefinate block! Sheesh, Guy is clearly feeling it - he was highly active over the holidays and needs some support. Should he swear? No. Will Blocking him after he has left when the diffs have already been raised discussed and dismissed help? Hell no. Does he need some more support from his colleagues? Hell Yes. --] 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is it that the bit of bad faith mud slung at me about punitive blocking still sticks after I already disavowed it? In the unlikely event that Guy logs on and claims he's perfectly right about telling people to ''fuck off'' and intends to continue...well then wouldn't it fall within the bounds of reason to impose a block preventatively before he actually does so again? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 07:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Exactly what in my edit was slinging mud? Do you really think that we need to discuss this three times? Would it be fair for a start? There are plenty of dispute resolution options available if Guy doesn't heed the request to cool the language down. But a block hours after the event when he isn't even logged in? Will that really help? I doubt it and I don't think that it would calm the situation down. Quite the opposite - we would have carnage if we went down that route without trying our very best to discuss the situation. You know how it works - wheelwarring, RFCs, RFArs everywhere. *Shudder* ] 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The diffs date as far back as December 1 and happened mostly within the last week or so. Most of them either use the word ''fuck'' or call some specific editor an idiot. If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I ''would'' block shortly after verifying the evidence. I have not done so in this instance, nor is it appropriate to introduce wheel warring to this very hypothetical discussion. <s>Your participation in this thread and at my user page has demonstrated very persistent bad faith against me and mischaracterized my actions to the extent that yes I do think it amounts to mudslinging. ] does not mean that my motives and methods are bad until proven legitimate.</s> I made a tough call tonight regarding a sysop I admire and like, couched it in the most respectful terms I could muster, and disclosed the situation here immediately. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have never posted on your talk page as far as I can remember and its not on my watchlist. Since you are throwing TLAs at me can I ask you where you have AGF with me? Making unfounded allegations of persistant bad faith against you by an editor is far more of a personal attack than what you charactarise as my mudslinging. Please review your post and check you have the right editor. You are completely overeacting to a comment that I don't think is wholly out of line with a significant pov posted in this thread. Blocking anyone without discussing the problem with them is inappropriate in pretty much every circumstance. If you asked Guy to tone it down and he told you fuck off then fair enough but not this so far. I think you are taking this far too personally. Its allowed to disagree - there is no need to get all offended. --] 08:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Mea culpa. I posted that shortly before I went to bed and must have been more tired than I realized by that point. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Enough! This is completely out of line. Not only do we have a huge section of people now trying to get even with Guy but he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself. Also, before all this biting at Guy began did you for one second consider the rampant bad faith of bringing this issue forward and the blatant disruption that this has caused by now? Those comments that Guy reacted to were completely out of line and he did the right thing. Showing up at ] and launching a personal attack of the magnitude that this editor did should be more than enough reason for a good long block at least. End of story, nothing more to see here people. ] 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My God... JzG remarked that someone may be "dismissed as a crank" and it spawned a giant thread started by a mildly offensive body part of a user that turned into a hunt through Guy's contributions for any other past transgressions. Amazing. ''Somebody'' has to deal with our twats. Wouldn't a message on JzG's talkpage to tone it down a little have sufficed? I find him quite reasonable. ]]] 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Exactly. I am appaled at the way things seem to be working here lately. As soon as a grup of disgruntled editors smell blood they hurl accusations and threats at an admin that works his ''fucking'' ass off around here. ] ] 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| * Sorry everyone, I know that learning to deal with people you consider to be idiots is ''not optional'' but somewhere between the ''n''th deletion of ] and fielding my fourth angry email from a spammer DEMANDING that he be allowed to continue adding links and articles about his company WHICH IS NOT SPAMMING AT ALL, I think I went over my personal threshold for the number of people-I-consider-to-be-idiots that I can handle simultaneously. My own fault for visiting the ]. Mind you, I'm not sure I can or should bowdlerise things - if someone does something as stupid as slapping a warning on an admin's talk page not do disrupt Misplaced Pages by disrupting their disruption of Misplaced Pages to prove a point to prove a point, I am almost certainly going to continue to say what I think. As anybody who knows me personally will readily tell you, that's my standard response to crass idiocy, even from my friends. Perhaps I should start ]ing things, like they do on Ye Shedde (uk.rec.sheds). I'm not going to address the diffs posted above, because I suspect that anybody who cares is not going to accept my version anyway. What was it that Cryptic said? Deals badly with trolls. Plus ça change, I guess. | |||
| #* 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:''' | |||
| : All of which brings me back to a comment I made some days ago: we need, I think, a place where we can get peer support without the intervention of people trying to escalate or resurrect thier own disputes. Barberio, for example, had absolutely no call to stick his oar in to the situation with SlamDiego, all that did was to make a tense situation worse and distract people away from helping with that problem (where I could have used a bit of help, and fortunately Hipocrite came along to provide it) and into yet more low-grade Wikidrama. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| ::You bring up an interesting point about past disputes. What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin (not you in this case) several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time? | |||
| ::There will always be a tension between letting sleeping dogs lie (not bringing up past disputes) and wanting to express concerns about a long-term pattern of behaviour that shows no signs of changing. What do you think is the best thing to do in cases like this? ] 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I suppose RFC would be the correct procedure. ANI threads such as this are far too easily abused by people with an axe to grind, who simply repeat earlier disputes with the person in question even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. ] 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interesting and well said. I love these kind of summaries which use no citations as they are cristal clear. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| ::I understand your reaction to SlamDiego, as I had an encounter with him in which I was sorely tempted to block him. I think it is ridiculous that all this fuss is being made about how you handled a <s>troll</s> combative and disruptive editor. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 14:52, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| I would, in fact, be perfectly happy to accept an apology for bad behaviour and a promise not to do it again. I have no vendetta against JzG, and he does do fine work, but he needs to know when to back off and go have a cup of tea. If you're worked up into a state where you're using foul language and ranting, you need to put down the keyboard. Unfortunately, comments to such were ignored, and my only recourse left was to file it on ] and bring it to general attention. | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.'' | |||
| ::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources == | |||
| I'm upset that he (And some others) seems to have decided I'm his enemy, I'm not. I was trying to get him to stop attacking people and escalating issues that could be resolved calmly. I'm sure he can so, and just needs to find that admin zen again. | |||
| {{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I'm sure that it's all been impressed on JzG now, and if we can settle this with a simple agreement not to use foul language against editors, it's something we can all drop and walk away from. I mean JzG no harm, and don't want any putative actions taken on him, I just want us to be able to get on with editing the wiki in a calm civil way. --] 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thatcher131 nails it. This is MONGO all over again. The clear message is: take the crap, deal with the trolls and cranks, and if you ever, ever, speak out bluntly or profanely at the shit being shoveled, someone will scream "foul" and either block you or threaten to do so as a punitive measure - or in the case of MONGO, desysop you as a reward for having done so much, so long for Misplaced Pages that you are at the breaking point. Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. Incredibly hard working admins who fight these idiots (Yes, I said idiots, I stand by that) who (the admins, not the idiots) occasionally slip under the strain should have a weighted response. If they have a ratio of 2,000 edits and actions which are civil and helpful to the encyclopedia, and 1 or 2 which are uncivil, to people who are of no or extremely little value to the encyclopedia, then reacting to that as though it were some kind of horror movie scene is Undue Weight. Hear me clearly: between the Giano situation, which is a case of one of the best writers here being driven to what appears to be a defensive running battle, by ADMINS no less - and the MONGO and now JzG situations, where admins have been driven to minor incivility by the sheer volume of crap they have to fight, and the response of a large portion of the community to respond with torches and stakes to the people who are '''driven to that point''' not the '''people who drove them there''', I am beginning to doubt the basic common sense of some of the general Misplaced Pages population. What are you people thinking? Oh My God, someone said a BAD WORD to a vandal, troll, or POV pusher. Well, fuck, I guess we'll all have to go to Time Out and not get cookies. Apparently it is more important to Be Civil at all times than to work your ass off completely uncompensated and have the random moment where it gets to you. Focus, anyone? Perspective? I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challanging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resouce since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the ] and ] policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are ''unambiguous'' in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility ''is justified'' for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy. ] 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you responding to me? Then either you need to read again, or I was unclear. Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred. Consistant crap will get one indef blocked, but occiasional crap does not. This is not a "special rule" this is applying the rules ''as they are currently written''. What is so hard to understand about that? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...and if that editor continues to act incivilly, then what? ] 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Then there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia. ] 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But this is my point exactly: this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) ''should'' be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of ] and ] does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass. Note: I am not arguing for or against the practice here, only that the practice is in conflict with the stated policy. If the consensus is that there are exceptions to these policies, then those exceptions should be documented somewhere. ] 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*I actually find very little reference to blocking on either page. NPA refers to blocking for legal/death threats, and "in extreme cases" it is "controversial" for users to be blocked for disruption. CIV lists a few suggestions to prevent incivility, several of which are widely impractical and several of which involve blocking (now reworded). I'm not sure where the idea comes from that incivility/personal attacks must in all or most cases be dealt with by blocking, because neither page says so. ] 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* Anyway, it's covered by ]. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* Anyway, it's covered by ]. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"? If you've ever worked retail then you've stood at a similar "firehose of crap" and probably not told anyone to "fuck off" (which would get you fired). In my view any normal person is capable of this sort of self-restraint. And it would be nice to see everyone use it. ] ] 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just a minor point here to all the people getting upset about "idiots" and "trolls". Why let "idiots" and "trolls" upset you so much? They are, as you say, idiots and trolls. Trolls will be pleased that you are getting upset, and idiots will, well, not really care or understand. '''Pity''' the idiots and trolls and dispassionately and calmly block them, rather than '''ranting and raving''' at them. POV pushers are another matter, and, in my opinion, a greater threat to Misplaced Pages, but they are being serious, so treat them seriously and civilly and defend ]. ] 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Disruption is disruption and is just as detrimental to writing an encyclopedia as POV pushers are. Everyone should remain civil as much as possible but we are only human, and if someone is being trolled to death, Misplaced Pages then becomes just a battleground for them. I am not aware of all JzG has been dealing with, but no doubt, it is not very difficult to understand how disruptive editors can make almost anyone become a bit off center in their remarks. If one doesn't experience it firsthand, they don't really know how crappy this place can be, but the only way to defeat it without laying down the law and sometimes being rude, is to walk away...and that is what the trolls want. I don't condone incivility, but in examining , ''Misplaced Pages users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action''. Now, again, what JzG needs is polite reminders to remain civil...and he also needs opur support if he is indeed dealing with a constant barrage of harassment...or even if he is simply dealing with a little harassment.--] 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good in theory, difficult in practice. People screaming at you, taunting, mocking...the reason people do it is because it works. ] 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns: | |||
| I just have to say something here (speaking in general and not in direct response to this thread), I don't see what place swearing at someone has in a serious effort to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Swearing at someone (even someone whose sole purpose is to troll) just enflames the person and gives at least some onlookers the impression that that's an acceptable way to interact with people. It's unproductive all the way around. Blockable? No, but admins have all the tools they need to deal with disruptive editors, how is being aggressively hostile to a disruptive editor going to make them less disruptive? And in the meantime, borderline editors and newcomers will see that there's a place for hostile incivility here, which is a message I don't think we want to send. ] 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''1. Misapplication of Policy''': | |||
| I said it as a reviewer on PAIN, and I'll say it here: JzG's conduct was unacceptable for a sysop, and he needs to be reminded to maintain the decorum expected of the Misplaced Pages administration. If he cannot conduct himself appropriately, he is negatively affecting the environment here on Misplaced Pages, and should surrender his status. If he can, well then all's well that ends well. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ]. | |||
| : And I'll say it plainly - people who are discussing blocking, or desysoping JzG for calling a disruptive and worthless contributor a twat are busybodies who should review Matthew 7:5. ] - ] 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''': | |||
| ::How about being part of the problem, you try being part of the solution? Incivility, especially towards those trying to resolve a situation, is divisive and unnecessary. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Strangely enough, that was where we came in. Do you honestly think I react like that when not provoked? It takes a fair bit of effort to get me angry, but one or two individuals seem to have made it a project to see how rude and aggressive they can be before I bite back. As games go it's not a particularly constructive one. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Try to decrease the "temperature" of a situation - not increase it. Sysops should be examples of expected conduct on Misplaced Pages, and as such, breaches of policy by a sysop are more concerning than those of a normal editor. As such, I feel that you should be reminded to keep such decorum. Do I think you should be desysopped or blocked, or, oh I don't know, tarred and feathered? No. You made a mistake when provoked, all I'm asking is you learn from it :) Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 22:06, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| I want to respond to Chihuahua. If an editor, any editor, is taking shit from another, there are means to deal with it. There is always a cavalry. You don't have to feel you are fighting a lone battle against a "twat". Someone else can come along and knock some sense into them, or help you conclude that said "twat" and sense can never be on speaking terms. No one gets "driven" to it. You don't ''have to'' fight a crusade against people who don't get it. You have the machinery to deal with it. | |||
| '''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''': | |||
| And yes, sorry, if there are punitive blocks for ordinary users who feel put upon by admins and snap, there are punitive blocks for admins who feel put upon by ordinary users and snap. It's better to have the rule of law than the law of the jungle. It's better in my view not to block punitively unless it is a matter of giving someone a bit of thinking space to correct how they see things though. If Guy thinks that the pressure is so much that he needs to abuse other people, maybe a day off to think about it wouldn't hurt. Maybe Guy needs some time away from areas in which he feels pressured. A bit of low-grade typochasing might help him get back on an even keel (I almost wrote "evil kin", which is a worry). He doesn't need blocking to give himself a bit of chilling-out time though. He just needs to figure out that he's let things get on top of him a bit, which I think he's probably well aware of. | |||
| Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.] | |||
| And I think Peter also has it right. It doesn't actually resolve the problem with "twats" if you yell at them to fuck off! A bit of fuckoffery could probably be more readily forgiven if it didn't seem to be the first line of defence against editors who upset you but yes, I think we do need stakes and torches for those who aren't willing to try other methods of managing conflicts than simply escalating them. ] 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Evidence''': | |||
| :First there was "Pity the idiots and trolls", now there's the Spanish Inquisition with its stakes and torches. Bah. Like Guy, I have a very limited capacity for suffering fools, and like KC I believe in accuracy. A troll is a troll, an idiot is an idiot, a POV pusher is a POV pusher. Period. In fact this motley collection of trolls, idiots and POV pushers that so many are defending in the guise of "civility" are hurting Misplaced Pages's reputation. Several of my wife's friends have contacted me asking if there wasn't something that could be done about the banal and inane objections raised by the trolls, idiots and POV pushers, as reading their comments on the discussion pages has turned them against using Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. None of them, however, had any gripes about trolls, idiots and POV pushers being treated in an uncivil manner, in fact they noted that these clowns are tolerated far more than they should be. ] 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And that kind of attitude just gives them an excuse to act the way they do. ] 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Guy Chapman needs to get gone from Misplaced Pages. He has a distinct anti-Catholic animus, inserts his opinions into matters he shouldn't as ad admin (matters about which he knows nothing in the first place), and has trashed the Fish Eaters website, getting it blacklisted for no good reason, and treating its owner like crap in the process. He is rude, illogical, arrogant, unreasonably punitive, hypocritical, unforgiving, and mean. He makes editing Wiki pages a little bit like touring Hell. ] 03:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, a Fish Eaters troll. Very nice. Was wondering when they were going to pop up. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Regarding Atren === | |||
| So, as I read this thread, it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances? Because the policy pages seem very clear that it is not permitted under ''any'' circumstances, and the reality seems to be not so clear cut. All I'm saying is when an editor visits ] and ] and sees these idealistic, uncompromising statements about personal attacks and civility, they get the impression that these are inviolable rules that can never be broken, when it's clear that ] applies to civility. I think we should qualify those policies to soften the stance somewhat (especially WP:NPA which is especially uncompromising) to reflect the ''reality'' not promote the ''false ideal''. ] 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| : I have told ATren in no uncertain terms that he was to stop needling JzG over this issue. As you may or may not know, ATren is in a protracted dispute with JzG over the article on ], and is transparently using this time of high Wikistress for JzG to attempt to make his experience here worse. I told ATren in no uncertain terms to stop this reprehensible behavior twice -> , and . As demonstrated directly above, he has decided to ignore my strongly worded advice. I suggest an adminstrator take appropriate corrective action to protect one of our most valuable editors and adminstrators in his ] from ATren's desire to hurt people he has had disputes with. ] - ] 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no desire to hurt anybody. I simply presented evidence on a user with which I have a contentious history. Durova clearly stated that she thought this was an isolated incident, and I replied that it was not, ''with diffs''. Is that stalking? | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action''': | |||
| ::And now I've made comments that the policy is at odds with consensus here. Policy is unswerving in condemning incivility, but consensus is obviously not so clear. It's clear that a certain amount of incivility ''is permitted'' for valuble contributors. So the policy is at odds with practice, and that should be resolved. That's it. | |||
| 1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification. | |||
| ::Frankly, I would find it quite ironic if I were blocked for simply ''reporting'' incivility here. I'm sure if I were involved in a conflict with another editor, JzG would not hesitate to chime in with his views. Why am I called a stalker for simply presenting evidence? I should point out that I'm not the first to question JzG's incivility, and in fact I didn't even start any of the recent threads. Why am I being singled out? ] 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::May I address that? In general, the more positive an editor's contribution history is the less intervention is necessary to get them to self-correct. I don't construe that as a license to be rude. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page. | |||
| :Incivility isn't permissable. But it is forgivable. Regards, ] 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration. | |||
| ===2nd arbitrary section break=== | |||
| If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits ] 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither ] nor ] specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community. By the same token, ] is a valued, hard-working, and scrupulously fair editor who's trying to do what s/he thinks is right, by bringing the issue here; going after Durova is also uncalled for. Let's give ] a chance to cool off; based on his history here, he's earned it, and will learn from this incident. Just my 2¢. ] 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Meh. I'm cool enough now, although I nearly went ballistic after reading Barbiero's sanctimonious bullshit about me having decided he's my enemy - I don't think I'm the one following someone around and stirring up trouble in his interactions with others. He's attacked Nick, Dmcdevit, me and now Radiant - if that carries on he's set to attack one admin too many, and we know where that will end up. I updated the disclaimer on my Talk page anyway. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: *shrug* I'm not attacking you, Nick, Dmcdevit or Radiant. I'm asking for some civil behaviour and responsibility, and I hope we can try to get along. I'm trying not to act in a hostile way to you, but making accusations of stalking and using phrases like "sanctimonious bull" make it hard to. | |||
| :: It should not be such a big thing for a well intentioned established editor to ask an admin to moderate their language, or check potentially controversial actions with others before proceeding. Constant review by others is the way the wiki works, this includes admin actions and behaviours. Frankly, I'm confused by some of the admin who are professing otherwise. --] 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Reads to me like JzG has decided to ignore you and you're desperate for acceptance. I reccomended you walk away before - I triple reccomend that now. Trust me, you are earning nothing but poop. ] - ] 22:42, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| Yesterday I made a tough decision. Guy doesn't hold it against me so I'll respond to the people who do. Quite a few of the negative comments appear to reflect unfamiliarity with my contributions. My respect for longstanding contributors is demonstrated at ] and ArbCom has deferred its case to ]. Yet I ask the people who wax about Guy's value at this project to consider this and this and this and this. Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular. Down in the trenches I'm also struggling to retain another good editor. His frustration might not have reached the breaking point if other admins had responded to either of the two reports that got filed here about a very persistent vandal. | |||
| Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed. | |||
| I happen to believe in ] and I walk the walk. Over at another arbitration case I apologized and struck through one very mild statement to a troublesome editor I had presented evidence against. | |||
| ----Best Regards | |||
| Look at how much goodwill that simple action purchased: the same editor is branching out from a single purpose account to become more of a productive Wikipedian and I've offered to give the Barnstar of Resilience when one of her pages gets onto ]. I get hounded too (see ]) and some editors try to exploit my goodwill. Yet I don't deliver a kick in the pants when I show someone the door. That kind of action validates the folks at Misplaced Pages Review. I shouldn't have to state this matter a third time, but my block warning to Guy was not punitive: it would have prevented him from dropping more ''f-bombs'' in the unlikely event he thought that was a-okay. I handled the situation exactly the same way I would have handled habitual profanity from an unsysopped editor of equal merit. Maybe that was wrong, but so many of the criticisms have misrepresented the basic facts of my actions that I find it hard to weigh the resulting analysis. I hope the administrators who want to ease the burden on folks like Guy and MONGO (and me!) will help out with more tough cases and investigations - not just pile onto stuff that's already high profile but look around the way I do for messes ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, Durova was right to speak up about incivility here. All the people 'jumping to the defense of JzG' have it exactly backwards... Durova was the one ''helping'' JzG. The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to ''lower'' standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is ''obviously'' bad for Misplaced Pages and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it ''always'' catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? '''Stop them''' from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens... kinda like Durova was doing. --] 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| ::Look at and tell me then who was out of line! Not only had this editor posted this "crank" on ], he had posted the exact same paragraph on ] twice and been reverted. He knew he was out of line and Guy was being overly nice by not beating him with the blockhammer. ] 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's see... Yrgh got upset about TAnthony calling him an idiot, he acted out, he got blocked and insulted again by JzG. Who was "out of line"? All of the above. Obviously. It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is ''part'' of the problem. --] 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, CBD. I'll be clear here. Guy was out-of-line; and I don't think he'd do it again. He is one of the most hard-working administrators on Misplaced Pages and exercises good judgment most of the times. But do you realise there are users who assume bad faith with everyone and are regularly uncivil and disruptive themselves; Guy was provoked here, and he did not react nicely. Do you realise the user who posted the civility warning on JzG's talk was being uncivil and disruptive himself? Strings and threads of warnings on ]. The same user posts a {{tl|npa}} template on Guy's talk; and when Guy reverts him he takes it to ], citing the words "fuck off" again and again and again, despite being uncivil, assuming bad faith – disregarding comments with regard to policies and guidelines with an holier than thou approach. That is "sanctimonious bullshit". I know where you are coming from, and you have the best intentions for Guy and Misplaced Pages as a whole, however a block warning by another administrator is frankly, out-of-line in itself. Would it help the situation get better? Definitely not. So, instead of giving more leverage to the arguments of such ... uh... over-assertive users, and rapping the knuckles of established administrators, we can all get back to editing articles. — ] 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The way to 'avoid giving more leverage' is to not violate the behaviour standards in the first place and not 'turn a blind eye' when it happens. If 'knuckles get rapped' in a fair and consistent manner they have nothing to complain about. If people are attacked for daring to suggest that the civility policies apply to everyone... THAT 'gives them leverage'. --] 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd like to see the approach covered by "I happen to believe in ] and I walk the walk." tempered by an eye for context. I wish the first question that went through an administrator's mind before intervention would be: what effect does this infraction have on the encyclopedia? The next questions could be: is there a hurry? and: will this cause a debate-fest, with the inevitable escalation that produces? And I'd like to suggest some slack be cut for administrators letting their guard down in non-article space like this page. The atmosphere gets a bit newsgroupy, so I'm saddened to see what is said offhandedly by good, hard-working users being policed just because they happen to say it in a room full of police, or to see one user's opportunistic stirrring being given the time of day: let complaints go through procedure, giving everyone time to think. | |||
| == Nothing to say about me really bot == | |||
| :::Despite dissimilarities with the Giano situation, I do notice one similarity. In both cases, a relatively harmless discussion on this page got out of control when diffs were suddenly bandied about and chased up. It seems to me that nothing administrators say here should lead to disciplinary procedures in the absence of a formal complaint (say to diff conjurors something like: "if you are bothered, make a formal complaint with a new heading, preferably after giving it a day or two's thought"). From what I can see, this started with one chap saying something a bit sharp, followed by someone telling him to tone it down: that should have been the end of it. In my opinion, another user pulled the triangle trap which I've seen on ''Supernanny'', and I wish one of our best and most diligent administrators hadn't walked into it in all good faith. I'd also like to see administrators asking themselves whether speed is required for any particular block: in this case the various diffs, which were not fresh, could have been mulled over for a day or two (during which it would have been found that a certain word was relatively innocuous), because the only urgent reason to block someone, in my opinion, is to stop them damaging Misplaced Pages: in this case, that didn't apply.] 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}} | |||
| I agree with what CBD is saying here. My philosophy is summed up at ]. This can be a hard thing to stick to, but no-one said this was going to be easy. In the long-term, breeding incivility is a very bad thing. I see too much of people seeing themselves as aggressive defenders of the project, and being attackers of trolls, and being firemen (and women) dealing with huge amounts of crap. I don't dispute that there are huge amounts of crap being added, but bringing yourself down to that level doesn't actually help. Constantly try to rise above it. Help others involved in this. If they are getting dragged down to the breaking point, point this out to them. Be a role model for others. ] 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Now I see how Misplaced Pages got to be a Top 10 website. It's all you knuckleheads resorting to vulgar epithets to dismiss those with conflicting views, then the victims signing in sixteen times an hour to cry and whine about it. Great encyclopedia, guys. --] 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :i can see why Guy would be angry, if the person wasted his time. However is an indef block warranted? ]]]. 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I don't really get the whole 'wasted time' bit. Yrgh complained that TAnthony had made personal attacks on him. TAnthony HAD made personal attacks on him. I haven't reviewed it in detail, but I saw that in just a cursory review. If Guy didn't see that and blew it off that's probably what led to Yrgh's complete meltdown... which sadly WAS extreme and worthy of a serious block. As he hasn't made any effort at communication since (that I know of) it is difficult to see if there would be any way to get him to calm down. -] 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Guy calling someone a twat was definately not ok. He apologized for that too. What should have happened at that point was that someone should have said to Guy "Look, you are getting too worked up now. Take a break, Misplaced Pages won't collapse if you are not here. Go watch some TV or something." Instead what happened was that everyone who felt a need to get even with Guy came running and started to fuel the fire hoping that they could get Guy blocked because he finally got too stressed and made a mistake. This is what upsets me greatly because Guy wasn't on at the time so the only people left to defend him were his friends who, granted, were equally eager to get even with those who fueled the fire to begin with. At that point all hell broke loose and I don't think any of us are proud of that. Hopefully what we have learned from this is that these situations are much better resolved by giving the stressed out editor (in this case Guy) a friendly "warning" telling him that he needs to take a break for a few hours or so and let others deal with spammers and the ]. ] 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| May I humbly point out a remarkable coincidence about this episode, considering that it's JzG who's involved. The case, where a casual remark which is almost a jovial term of endearment in the UK comes across as a deadly and unforgivable insult in another time zone, parallels the ] case. From what I've read all have been acting with the best of intentions, and while Guy will no doubt have washed his mouth out with soap, it's worth remembering that Zaphod's ship is ''The Heart of Gold''. And in all cases, not just with admins, I'd hope that previous good behaviour is always taken into account when handing down sentences. I rest my case, m'lud.... ], ] 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| {{user|Tarinth}}'s contributions are almost totally !votes on AfDs. And the !votes I have read (about ten in the past ten minutes) are practically nothing but bizarre. Before I start throwing templates or criticisms at him/her, am I totally off base here? ]|] 00:15, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| :Well, a polite note that one's AFD contributions are likely to be taken more seriously if it's not one's only contributions to the project? ] (]:]) 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| ::]. The quality of the argument is the main thing, not the quality or quantity of the 'voters'. | |||
| ::At a quick glance, some of the comments are a bit harsh, but the few I looked at were superficially resonable. Any particular contribution(s) that worry you? Regards, ] 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: caused me to sit up and take notice. ]|] 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That seems to have been an exception, an attempt to express a close call decision humorously. This more recent Afd Tarinth participated in reasonably constructively: ], and this one quite constructively, actually improving the article under consideration: ]. Tarinth isn't quite up on our fine points (]) but seems to be making a good faith effort. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| :OK, thanks, this feedback is why I brought this here. I appreciate the input. ]|] 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I was surprised to find this here, as I was searching on my own name in response to another issue on the noticeboard. If you have feedback regarding my contributions Zoe, I'd suggest approaching me directly with your feedback. While I've made a lot of contributions regardng AfD's, I've also contributed significant content for articles like ] and have provided valuable additions to things like ]. While I'd prefer not to receive templates on my talk page, I'd request that if you think that some of my comments have been "bizarre" that you could approach me about such comments directly. As for ], my comment there is more of a typo that argues more for not contributing when tired moreso than for my misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages (yes, I'm well-aware that we're not a dictionary.) ] 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't want to approach you until I had made up my mind how I wanted to address it. ]|] 00:16, 7 January 2007 (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. | |||
| == Disputed indef block of ] == | |||
| :Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet. | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ] ] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
| ::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed). | |||
| :::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly: | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::: • | |||
| ::::and many more | |||
| ::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ] ] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old. | |||
| *:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages. | |||
| *:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| ] was indef blocked by ], and several editors are requesting a review of the block. The relevant talk pages are ], ], and ]. — ] ] — 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :To simplify, Nkras was asked not to repost content from an article called ], which was deleted via an AFD. While the deletions of the reposted content were by Coredesat, I was the one who did the block. I chose an indefinite block because of one of the summaries Nkras used to recreate the content. The summary, as repasted at ], felt like taunting and refuse to listen to consensus. He was blocked before, though it was retracted some time later by that same admin. I feel that it was his intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages by reposting the content, and with his recreation statement, I felt that he would have caused more harm than good. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: i've taken it to ArbCom. Zscout370 made very clear he wasn't changing his mind and i, for one, don't want to waste my breath with him. we don't need to kneel down and beg admins to just act like decent people. we don't need to beg them at all. they need to take their role as ''servants'' of the project more seriously than that. i dunno how long Zscout has been an admin, but i'll bet he likes ''power'' and tossing it around. ] 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :::Please see my comments on the ]. The Arbitration Committee will not consider this matter until earlier stages in dispute resolution are exhausted. ''This'' discussion is the appropriate place at which a consensus on this block should be reached. I will add that while the block appears harsh, personal attacks on the blocking administrator do not advance the discussion. ] 05:09, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| :::Wow. That's quite a jump there, going from a block that you disagree with to complete assumption of bad faith and personal attacks. ] are bad. Immediately recreating them after they are rightfully deleted (]) is bad and reeks of intentional disruption and violation of consensus. If the user has no history of this, then okay, shortening the block might be acceptable; however, my understanding is that is not the case here and in fact the user had been blocked for POV pushing before. Where is the evidence that they are here to build an encyclopedia consistent with our goals? I don't see it. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 05:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My (now deleted) summary of the matter is at <span class=plainlinks>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nkras&oldid=98587038#Overreaction.3F</span> — ] ] — 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That + the responses from the blocked party pretty much sums up and ends the matter in my book. Unless there's something big I've missed in reviewing this, I '''firmly endorse''' the block. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm also of the opinion that the indefinate block is an excessive time period. ] has a strong opinion on the subject of marriage and what is the definition of marriage. I came to article when a ] was placed granting full protection and later removed that same protection after discussions on the article talk page had taken place. During those discussions Nkras was an active participant but he was also able to agree to a IMHO reasonible compromise see ]. Whist a block for his actions were necessary IHMO is that a short term block to enable him to consider his actions would have been sufficient. Additionally Arbcom set a precedent of restricted editing to other editors who have strong opinions than Nkras which should also be considered like at ] with ]. ] 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am '''Strongly Oppose''' this indefinite block. I was one of the users who was both affected by (and highly irritated by) his contentious edits. However, the fact remains that he was the principal author of the compromise reached about the opening section of the ] article. He drafted the text that now stands, with input of several other editors. It is a classic example of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Yes, he has made several mistakes in his time at Misplaced Pages, but he has learned from them, and I have seen him grow. As to his recreation of the traditional marriage article, as has already been pointed out, it was substantially different from the article that was deleted. While the admins who acted against the recreation may not have known this, it goes a long way towards clarifying his intentions, and his frustration at seeing it deleted once again. I would like to add that this entire situation has been highly stressful for many editors here. ] has already left the project due to the block of Nkras, and I am considering leaving myself. I urge you to rescind this block, which is causing more damage than it was supposed to prevent. ] 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * While I fully '''endorse''' this block, its duration seems to me too harsh. Nkras has only one previous block, and it was lifted only one hour later. He's not a persistent troblemaker, and block no longer than a week is appropriate in this case, IMO. [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size= | |||
| "+1">''S''</font>em]] 11:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Per Maxsem. While I fully '''endorse''' this block, an indef is a bit much. Give him a week off and make it absolutely clear to this fellow that "Consensus" is absolutely vital and that we must stick by it. What is more, also make it clear to him that DRV exists for a reason. Though an indef is a bit much, this editor's conduct sticks badly in the craw. ] <sup> ]</sup> 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **The block was totally appropriate, especially given the edit summary for the recreation and the statement ''"I will not agree to any "consensus""''. '''I fully endorse the block'''. Zscout should not be in any way sanctioned for what i deem to be a perfectly appropriate block of a user who specifically stated they will ignore concensus achieved and judged upon by a neutral administrator at AfD, and go and recreate an article after specifically being told not to (but rather to go to DRV) three times! However, I would agree to an unblock in a week's time or so, on the provision that if he recreates the content, or acts disruptively in any form related to Zscout, Cored. or any other editor involved, he is blocked indef. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I absolutely agree with you on two points: no sanctions against Zscout370 (it was one, isolated overreaction in good faith) should be taken, and that when an if Nkras will be unblocked, his next action against consensus should result in indef or something close to that. But even such incivil and stupid comment as the one you've quoted shouldn't result in indef with no serious violations in background. ] 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''(edit conflict)'' I think this could be put down to ]. I don't think Zscout's reaction could be accurately described as an "overreaction"; it was more the fact that he might have seen a bunch of edits that screamed "indef" at him, and missed all the good stuff. It's why we have ], and I think Zscout is entitled to a lot of it, and Nkras a little bit as well :) Also, see Mangojuice's comment below - he sums up the distinction between "indefinite" and "infinte" quite nicely; this misunderstanding is probably cause for most angst. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think Zscout acted correctly on the information available, whats happening here is an act of ] from those that have interated with Nkras knowing that once the initial heat is removed from the action he's capable of reaching a consensus. With this knowledge the community wants to extend to Nkras the opportunity to again participate as such I think an appropriate warning to Nkras that further such actions wont be tolerated and that the indefinated block will be reimpossed if he repeats such actions. ] 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I '''fully endorse''' Zscout's decision to indefinitely block. The user in question has disrupted Misplaced Pages and has made statements that he will continue to do so. Remember that an "indefinite" block is not an ''"infinite"'' one -- if Nkras changes his attitude the situation could change. But until then, I see no reason to allow him to return to editing after time off -- time seems unlikely to settle his behavior. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perfectly summed up - this distinction (indefinite != infinte) is probably the cause of all the angst in this dispute. Another perfect example, from 5mins ago, is . '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does Nkras demonstarte a change in attitude without being able to edit? ] 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Emails and talk page discussions (assuming his talk isn't protected) saying that he will not be disruptive would show a good faith attempt at a change in attitude. Oh and agree with Mangojuice and Daniel Bryant (and assumedly Zscout) that indef != ban. Its amazingly simple to shorten a block if assurances to stop disruptive actions are forthcoming. ] 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have emailed Nkras, and urged him to email Zscout to discuss this block and how to have it removed. And to paraphrase what was stated above, if we as a community are to assume good faith on the part of administrators, I would hope that admins can extend the same courtesy to new users who are still learning how the Wiki process works. ] 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While I fully respect the decision to block any user with repeated disruptive edits on "hot" topics that claim to "ignore consensus". However, I cannot help but feel that a few things were a little off with the way it happened. First, ZScout said at the RfA discussion that the user's eit summaries were "taunting the admins". I've got the feeling that Nkras's edits were not the main reason why ZScout blocked him, but more because he refused to respect the admin's "authority". Then, the "consensus" citation is off context, as Nkras was making a very good point, per ]. Furthermore, while I like the technicity and poetry of the infinite/indefinite disambiguation, it not fair to the blocked user (nor is it textually correct: "Infinite block" wouldn't apply to its duration, but to all its aspects, so it couldn't apply here): There is a reason why we have 24h, 1weekand 2 weeksblocks. Else we could just indefblock everyone and be done with it. An indefblock makes a user feel at the mercy of the first admin. That's good sometimes: some people need to understand that there is a regulation mechanism here; but right now it's a tad too much. | |||
| ::::::Now, I'd like everyone to understand me real good: I don't like that guy, and if after his 1 week block and some good explanations about why there are talk pages he went back to disruptive edits, commentsand summaries, and ''then'' was bloocked indefinitely, I'd be more than happy. But ''after'' a short block to let him browse the policies and guidelines, and make his own mind as to wether he wants to be a part of this or not. Not before. Thanks for reading.--] 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<< I've got the feeling that Nkras's edits were not the main reason why ZScout blocked him, but more because he refused to respect the admin's "authority". >> | |||
| ::::::::That's assumption of bad faith without a shred of evidence. In fact, he wasn't going against the authority of administrators, he was going against the authority of the community. ] does not apply to violating consensus (<< I will not agree to any "consensus" >>), it applies to skipping unnecessary and inapplicable process. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '']'' 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. | |||
| *I endorse the indef block of Nkras. He is not a bumbling newbie. He appears to be an upholder of 'absolute truth', which explains his refusal to accept consensus. As such, he is unlikely to accomodate himself to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, where, after all, verifiability comes before 'truth'. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I disagree, Donald. Nkras has been here for exactly 2 months, and of his 289 edits, only 76 are to articles themselves. The vast majority are on various talk pages, which doesn't really give one experience in consensus building or constructive editing. In my eyes, he is relatively new, and deserves a chance to learn from his mistakes. ] 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***"Being unlikely to accomodate" doesn't mean he won't. Unblocking the guy after a week, and watching him closely won't cost much. If he really is the absolute truth upholder you say he is, it won't take two hours after that to ban him once and for good. Oh, and verifiability is '''not''' consensus. {{unsigned|$yD!|SidiLemine}} | |||
| ****I think part of the issue here is that some of you don't have the perspective admins have. I have had the experience in the past of giving a user the benefit of the doubt and trying to monitor their behavior. Several times, in fact. I've learned to be conservative because, let's face it, the upside to any one editor being honestly involved in the project is usually small, but there's a very big downside to disruptive ones. A couple examples that spring to mind are ] and ], that I was personally involved in. The truth is, ''one'' admin watching closely means that they have to divert a good portion of their attention, and be on-wiki 24/7, and spend a lot of time analyzing borderline behavior, agonizing aboud whether to reblock, possibly discussing with other admins, whereas that time could be spent much more productively if the user was simply blocked. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I endorse this block. shows complete contempt for Wiki ways in the face of some very patient explanations of how to go about this the ''right'' way. No angry mastodons, thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While I am the first to admit he was at times obstructive and contentiopus in his edits on the MArriage article, the diff above gives a distorted picture of events there. and and clearly show he was working quite collegially with other editors after tempers had died down. Please try to show a complete picture of his editing on Misplaced Pages, and not only negative examples. ] 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment on process'''. One of things that bothered me about this dispute and the reason for my limited involvement, was that ] was given no explanation by the blocking admin of the unblock procedure. I would hope that the subject of such sanction would always have it explained to them ''at the time'' how they can have the decision reviewed. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this point? As to the block itself- yes, an indef block does seem rather long. But given that Nkras has not in his later posts to his talk page expressed regret for his disruption or an undertaking not to disrupt in the same manner again, I recognise that he gives little reason to trust him. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Didn't he change his ways even before being blocked? Anyway, I think I can say that we have reached a consensus that while a block is in order, an indefblock is too much. Now we probably should decide upon the reasonable length the block should have. I personally think one week is enough. --] 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' for SidiLemine's compromise block, with the proviso that Nkras is put on some sort of monitoring/mentoring restriction. ] 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a vote. Theresa Knott has asked for Nkras to clarify his future behavior, let's start there. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mangojuice, we all know this is not a vote. This is a discussion of whether this indefinite block was appropriate or not, and an attempt to reach consensus about what should be done. As such, my support of SidiLemine's attempt at a solution was appropriate. Please don't be ]. ] 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Peace. Mangojuice does make a totally valid point. Until Nkras has clarified how he intends to conduct himself in future there really is no way of determining how long a block is appopriate. If he says, "I will do everything in my power to undermine this scocially left institution," he prob shouldn't be unblocked. If he says, "I am very sorry and promise to always work towards concensus constructively in future," a shorter block might be appropriate. Without his response the discussion is slightly hypothetical. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Absolutely. Blocks are preventive, a credible commitment to no further disruption would likely be persuasive in an unblock request. That said, the block is warranted due to the statements made. So. See what happens, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Herein lies the problem with editors, editing articles they have strong personal feelings about... I agree with what ] said above. Based on ]'s statments in some of the diffs provided above he appears ready to embark on some ] in regards to this topic. I'd like to see him submit a request for block review or comment on his userpage committing to working on a consensus instead of editing in a way that could be seen as disruptive or ]-making. the ArbCom is premature. I don't see any evidence RfM or RfC was ever pursued here. We have those for a reason.--] 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **OK. Is he aware that he should state that helearned, and won't do it again? And slightly off-topic, isn't therea risk in these kind of situations that the guy just understands he got banned, and doesn't even come back to check his talk page? Just asking. We also have block warning templates for a reason. --] 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***He has edited numerous times since the block; in my opinion, the tone of those edits is not at all an improvement and more clearly delineates his role as a POV warrior. Check his contribs. Plus, he was blocked for POV pushing once before; that's about as big a block warning template as you can get. He apparently expressed enough regret to get CanadianCaesar to unblock him before the block was to expire, but he went right back to it only a few days later. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Plus, there are pointers to this discussion and the ] on his talk page. Just because he's blocked doesn't mean he can't read those discussions. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Nkras posted on his talk page, stating that during a block of two weeks, he will study up on policy. I am pretty much fine with that because it shows that Nkras has made error and is making some effort to fix it. I am not sure what policies that Nkras should read other than ] and ], since those are the two core issues. What do yall think? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******Discussion of the unblock by Nkras himself: ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| (losing indent) I am not happy with the last sentence. I will not agree to his terms so to speak. However I do think he should be unblocked. I propose this - we unblock for a different time period - say a week (or even straight away if you like) . We ''advise'' him to read up on the relavent policies. He can choose not if he likes, I don't care. When he comes back if he engages in further disruptive edits we block him indefinately - end of discussion. That way we don't have to negiotiate with a problematic editor or have to concede to him some power to be the arbiter of truth, and still give him a chance to learn to edit in cooperation with others. What do people think? ] | ] 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| :I will probably let this ferment for a day or two, since you, myself and another person told him about the last sentence. While it is good he is addressing the block, I just do not see anything that convinces me yet of if the block should be shortened, let alone lifted. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::I am very disappointed at Nkras' reaction. The last sentence he wrote in his "unblock proposal", ''User:nkras reserves the right to edit and discuss articles based upon objective truth and fact without retaliation by Admins or Editors.'' suggests that he will continue the same practices that led to the current situation we find ourselves in. Though I have been one of the most vocal proponents of having his block rescinded, I don't feel it is up to Nkras to dictate the terms of his reentry to the community. Nkras has been given a very thorough hearing, and I am now satisfied with whatever decision the administrators wish to return. <sigh> ] 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am uninvolved, but after reading his skewed proposal, I will have to say I will '''vehemently reject''' it. His last sentence is an equivalent to upending not only his entire proposed "compromise," but also core Misplaced Pages policies with it with his "I'm-right-and-you-better-get-the-hell-out-of-my-face" attitude. Sorry, we're not here to mollycoddle one single editor that the community barely trusts anymore. We're not here to be forced onto a negotiating table with an editor who has blatantly and steadfastly refused to accept consensus as a benchmark for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, detailed ad nauseum in various pages spanning Misplaced Pages and beyond. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"...and beyond"? — ] ] — 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::IRC. Oh yes, I forgot that that place is ]. Never mind. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As to the block itself, I have no comment; I'm just trying to clarify things. He considers "kosher" important as an example of language usage. To understand the point he's trying to make with the example currently on his talk page, one may need the context of the preceding discussion. It's referenced in several places at ], but gets detailed in the section preceding with an addendum . — ] ] — 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'': | |||
| I've decided to try unblocking him. I feel generally that indefinate blocks are for hopeless cases and I don't (yet) feel he is one. Although my discussion with him hasn't been 100% what I asked for, it has gone well enough. He is not IMO the sort of nut that needs to be permenantly banned. What he does now will prove me right or wrong. ] | ] 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}} | |||
| This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
| ==NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)== | |||
| 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.() | |||
| Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information ) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" | |||
| Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views" . An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors . Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained . Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept seem to be getting ignored - | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview." | |||
| 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'' | |||
| Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view | |||
| , | |||
| , | |||
| 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.'' | |||
| ,, | |||
| 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. | |||
| There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. . Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce. | |||
| 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''. | |||
| Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article - and by removing it completely from discussion . | |||
| 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 ]'' | |||
| There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles . | |||
| 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 . | |||
| On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. ] 07:06, 5 January 2007 (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. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement that {{Template:Vandal|AlanBarnet}} is either a sockpuppet of long-term abuser ] or he is . At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. ] 07:47, 5 January 2007 (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. | |||
| ::Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable. I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. ] 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*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 ]. | |||
| ::* Your diffs above clearly show ''several'' other editors consistently reverting ''you''. Can't you see that only incriminates yourself as the editor that pushed an edit-war? ] 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*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. | |||
| * It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*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. | |||
| *: Your view that editors are partly motivated out of their POV is unfounded and must necessarily be based on not having read the NLP talk page. Both ] and ] have been very extremely verbal in promoting the mainstream scientific view and nonetheless they both want AlanBarnet blocked . And quite frankly ''']''', you are in personal conflict posting here as an admin; having previously labelled NLP pejoratively as a cultic , and with AlanBarnet saying he communicates with you privately . There is no ''consistent'' evidence that there is either a pro-NLP or anti-NLP camp. In fact, the clearly shows there is much healthy debate, except on one issue where all agree: ] is an abusive sockpuppet of . Users have had two months to determine this. AlanBarnet is just as antagonistic and disruptive as HeadleyDown and he has maliciously posted a users' personal information several times . Woohookitty? Voice-of-all? Can we please have an admin that is qualified to recognise this sockpuppet? ] 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). ] 12:37, 5 January 2007 (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. ''''}} | |||
| *::Hi user 58.179.166.57. I am cooperatively posting notices on ANI to solve a problem. I never said I communicated with Guy privately - only that I am keen on cooperating with admin. There have been over 80 edits on the NLP article per day at times and with no sufficient discussion. There are editors on the article who seem to have a COI and you seem to be encouraging them to edit. I've reiterated admin suggestions and assessments and you call it harassment. You seem to be dismissing key NPOV points about keeping the article summarized and you've been regularly marginalizing key science views as can be seen in the links above. When I make reasonable suggestions towards making sure all relevant views are presented as best as the proponent of each view can - you delete the suggestion. When helpful editors restore the suggestion you delete again . You and others seem to be refusing to balance views and refusing to make succinct concise statements about each view. I am talking about getting along. If you would like to start civilly discussing the Suppression of Information policy on the NLP talkpage I'm sure admin would be happy that editors of different views are trying to get along. ] 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::: Utter baloney! AlanBarnet, if you are so wonderful how do you explain six separate editors thinking you are a manipulative sockpuppet and wanting you blocked? Coincidence? All editors are reverting you blindly now, quite obviously sick of your falsified article citations and talk page sugercoated baloney. confirms what I am saying. Clearly you should be blocked. ] 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hi 58.179.166.57. Editors who have not shown a reluctance to presenting all views clearly seem to be reverting you (Editor MER-C at least). And rather than blind reversion - it seems to be a reversion based upon the need for collaborative and civil discussion. ] 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hi again; Just to help get the ball rolling towards collaborative editing and discussion - I'd like to present this for discussion on the NLP talkpage. Rather than just delete such a large piece of unsourced argumentative commentary - it seems more constructive to see if there is anything of any value in it by discussing with other editors. Thanks ] 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Guy. You are being naive. Just because AlanBarnet says he's presenting mainstream scientific views and preventing them being obscured by others doesn't make it true. AlanBarnet has done virtually none of the work in sourcing, verifying and citing the mainstream scientific views which now have a full clear section. I know because I did alot of it myself in collaboration with other editors, including Comaze, but almost never AlanBarnet. He has no real interest in ascertaining genuine views from genuine sources, whether they're pro or anti NLP. Neither is he remotely interested in helping shorten, improve or clarify anything else. Mostly what AlanBarnet does is revert to older inaccurate versions without bothering to clear up the mess created with references, citations etc, put inaccurate or highly selective quotes in the introduction (over and over again), put in grossly POV statements, unverified and unsourced and refuse to provide verified sources on request, and then clutter up the talk page insultingly accusing everybody else of doing these things. If you believe any of that nonsense about wanting to collaborate or work constructively with others then you are the only one who does. Those of us who have had the pleasure of trying to work with him (and I tried very hard) know this protestation for what it is worth. Less than zilch. I also asked you some time ago that if you had any decent sources to back up your claim that it is a 'fact' NLP is a cult, to let us have them, because nearly all of the ones from the HeadleyDown/AlanBarnet camp, when somebody troubles to actually read the blasted things, don't support this. The only sources left are Protopriest Novopashin and you. In the circumstances I would support the request for somebody else from admin. ] 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| JzG/Guy. There is no pro-NLP camp. Firstly Fainites and 58.* tend to be on the side of skepticsm and scientific rigor. As far as I know they have no prior knowledge or personal experience in studying NLP. They are basing their edits on what is in the reputable / verifiable literature. It is a complex topic because there are so many different views with no black and white mainstream view. --] 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Users Comaze and Fainites. Rather than repeatedly and dismissively delete the concise view of science from the lead section - you could discuss why you feel it does not quite capture the full view of science and we could go on with improving it . Also as yet - the Suppression of Information policy has not been discussed at all on the talk page. I presented it several times and my suggestion for civil discussion was met with dismissive deletion. So as a solution I present a concise lead again and I present the Suppression of Information policy on the talk page . Open for civil discussion. ] 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tourettes Guy== | |||
| I'm posting this here instead of ] because it affects many articles. I noticed a pickup in vandalism to TS, and found *www.tourettesguy.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7* (de-linked due to address now on blocklist) Not only is ] being hit more frequently now, but also the several articles about the fictitious "Tourettes guy" that have been AfD'd (and DRV'd). I reluctantly concur that ] may need semi-protection for a while, and a closer eye may need to be kept on the TS daughter articles, and the various Tourettes Guy articles. | |||
| *{{article|Danny (Tourettes Guy)}} | |||
| *{{article|Tourette's Guy}} | |||
| *{{article|TourettesGuy.com}} | |||
| *{{article|Tourettes Guy}} | |||
| *{{article|Turrets guy}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *and there's a deletion review somewhere, but I can't find it. | |||
| And, we also have sockpuppetry involved: {{User|Sportsguru9999}} | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : in case it's informative. There may be others. -- ] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: and ]. —] 18:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's something really wrong with our DRV process if that many DRVs about TS can happen without me becoming aware of any of them - why is there no notification process on the article talk pages? ] (]) 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I was ''sooooo'' tempted to use that f word again... yes, it's me, the ''real'' Tourette's Guy :o) Sandy, these DRVs had nothing to do with Tourette's, last time I checked it out there was pretty broad agreement that "Danny" doesn't even have Tourette's. I'm looking into whether we should be asking for spam blacklisting to help with the links. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*oh, I don't think he has TS - he's just a drunken slob - but they've been adding their links to the TS article for a long time, and I'm sorta/kinda the only TS editor on Wiki, so you'd think I'd know what they're up to :-) We do need some help - I've seen their activity elsewhere. Worried about ], though. (And hold the ] - you can't afford any right now - someone might take 'em the wrong way :o) ] (]) 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* Addendum: Centrx removed the ] from at least one incarnation, which had already been deleted six times, so I have made them all protected redirects to ] - if anyone deletes the protected-deleted there please let me know and I'll restore it. If we've learned one thing about these people it's that they are persistent. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Also , and - ] will give you a fair idea of the kind of nonsense we get from this source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Blacklisted. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] revisited == | |||
| {{user|Ilena}} (, , ) appears to be slipping back into her previous behavior after a week of marked improvement since the previous AN, thanks in no small part to the help of some very patient editors. With over 400 edits since early December, she still doesn't appear to understand ] and ], resulting in her edit-warring and other disruptive behavior which she supports with personal attacks against those who hold viewpoints other than her own. She recently indicated she would be contributing to Wikipedial much less over the next week, which I think is the ideal time to discuss the situation again, as opposed to timing of the previous AN, where she attacked everyone who even hinted at having a viewpoint she didn't like. ] 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It might be helpful if you provide some diffs with evidence of this behavior...--] 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: (chosen from her last 50 edits) --] 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Another take on cause & effect with Ronz' machine gun policy cites, ''''''--] 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The problem has been three-fold: | |||
| :# She does not realize that Misplaced Pages doesn't deal in '''truth''' - we deal in ]. And when I point this out to her, she provides ] that are not ]. | |||
| :# The opposing editors in the dispute have been doing the same thing, which seems to be ending up in a tit-for-tat dispute where both sides are just going to come out of the matter looking very, very bad, and possibly blocked. | |||
| :# Ilena is very used to being on the defensive, after harassment by some of these editors in real life and on usenet. People have brought baggage onto Misplaced Pages, and this has fed her defensiveness. This leads to the unfortunate side effect where she gets in this mindset where if someone is not for her, they are against her. | |||
| :: Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::] deserves the ] for the hard work he's put in mentoring ]. That said, harassment is a two-way street, and Ilena's not exactly an innocent victim here. I think there's really one issue: Ilena is here on Misplaced Pages to argue her case in a real-life feud with ]. It's a ] and also very disruptive to import a real-life feud into Misplaced Pages (which, after all, is ostensibly ]). It could work out OK if she is able to understand and apply Misplaced Pages's core principles. ] is an optimist, and I am a pessimist, as to the likelihood of this happening - credit to Peter. The question is, why do we cut someone with Ilena's contribution history so much more slack than we give a ])? But ] is right - please provide diffs to support the claim that she's backsliding. ] 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm inclined to agree with ]. ] but it appears there are several parties involved in this dispute who are bringing their usenet baggage here. That said, I don't really see what ] is referring to. There were a couple of edits on the 3rd to the ] article where a description was . Without diffs it is hard to say if this is the problem ] is concerned about, but I will say that neither description is ''in any way sourced''. The edit war shouldn't have been engaged it, but that text should be sitting there uncited if it is disputed. That said, ] seems to have a penchant for using article talk pages to air her grievances against other editors as well as continually claim bad faith on their part. As Peter has alluded to above, there may be good reason she has these opinions based on her experiences elsewhere, but someone probably needs to remind her of ] and that she needs to treat Wiki as separate from her ongoing issues with people outside of the 'Pedia as well as a reminder of '''Verifiability not truth'''.--] 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The thing is, I don't think censure of Ilena will be constructive, as it's just going to mean that a biased article is going to stay biased. For the most part she has been "playing nicer" by staying to the talk page, minus an incident of baiting. | |||
| I would like to propose a community remedy, but I'm unsure if it's something the community can do. Specifically, I would like to propose that {{user5|Ilena}}, {{user5|Fyslee}}, {{user5|Jance}} and {{user5|Curtis Bledsoe}}, as parties to this content dispute, are banned from editing these articles for a term agreed upon here, and must discuss changes they wish to make on the talk page. I, myself, voluntarily recuse myself from editing under this term due to my association as a mentor of Ilena. Thoughts? ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :How am I party to this content dispute? If I am, then so is {{user5|Ronz}}, {{user5|MastCell}}. {{user5|Arthur Rubin}} and anyone who ever edits these sites. I have no baggage wtih usenet, and I have no interest in POV in these articles. Excuse me, but I really do not see this. I welcome input as to where I have been biased or engaged in any dispute here, except to discuss what the the court ruling was (and was not).] 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't have any Usenet baggage either. I have always deliberately steered clear of her. Keep in mind that it was her making the first attacks (myriad) that started her problems, both on Usenet, in the courts, and here. That doesn't justify harsh replies, but "who started it" is an important factor here. Before she came here, the editing was getting along just fine. The Barrett v. Rosenthal article wasn't even started by any Barrett friends as far as I know, and that's how she found it. It had been started apparently by some lawyer types (or others interested in California law cases) who were interested in the case. She immediately started violating multiple rules here, and when anyone advised her, she replied with attacks and claims of POV reverts against her as a person, when it was only trying to get her to follow policy. Let's not start attacking the victims of her attacks. | |||
| ::: Her very first entry on the talk page was a personal attack on me. My first article edits were not objectionable in any way, yet she attacked me and apparently assumed that the articles condition at that time was controlled by Barrett supporters, when they had actually not been involved at all. I had just discovered the article by chance. I think a block of the named editors (the victims of her attacks) who be a gross injustice to editors who had been working just fine before she started attacking all of us and violating multiple rules here, while editing in a severe COI situation, which means it is her who should be blocked from editing the article, and be limited to civil discourse on the talk page. | |||
| ::: I take my hat off to Peter for his attempts to mentor her. I only fear his lack of understanding of Ilena's past history and consistently aggressive Usenet behavior (which she has brought here) has caused him to be too optimistic, but his attempts deserve our respect. Good for him! -- ] 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As much as I love the show ], I had to edit your username templates above...--] 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm afraid it's still not right. It was probably me. — ] | ] 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gotcha... I didn't know which "Arthur" this referred to, I just added "user5" so we were not seeing the template for the PBS kids show. I would hope he and ] are not involved in this dispute.--] 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't proposing censure here, at least not at this time. Without diffs it is really hard to say exactly what prompted this complaint in the first place, but from looking through ]'s history I don't see anything current that would warrent a block or ban at this point, particularly given her claim that she is going to be off Wiki for a while. Blocks and bans are meant to prevent problems, not be punative. That said though, I'm inclined to agree with you Peter that if this silliness is continued, everyone involved in edit-warring here, particularly those who are actually connected to this outside 'Pedia should be slapped with a topic ban on anything related to ] for several months. They are wasting other editors' time, yours included, with this nonsense.--] 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Or maybe mediation. It worked for NLP for a while, anyway. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Right, I don't see any evidence of an RfM or an RfC here so tossing around community bans is a bit premature. Let ] work its magic first.--] 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with ]; maybe mediation is an appropriate next step. Many of the content disputes are actually relatively minor (6 reversions on whether to call a publicist a "publicist" or not, without any actual sourcing?!?) They don't exactly require ArbCom's attention - all that's needed is potentially some third-party input to smooth things over. I think ] considers , so I don't think I fit the bill. The problem with blocking all involved parties from editing is that the article will likely just sit there - the only people who really edit it at this point are Although, if the goal is to cool things off, perhaps it would work? ] 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Full on topic bans all around is the nuclear option; I don't think we are there yet. Better to start with an RfC and move on to RfM if that doesn't help. I've had my own experience being referred to as a shill of sorts on another unrelated topic and I'd say, yes that probably much excludes you as being an acceptable 3rd party. I'd be willing to have a look and make a few suggestions as a completely uninvolved party (I'd never heard of the case or any of the personalities involved here until it started showing up on ]. I'm probably as neutral as it is possible to be on this topic.--] 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think you misunderstand my proposal. Allow me to clarify. Article bans are a preventative measure, not enforced by blocks unless the editors break them. The idea is to give a "cooling off period" to diffuse a dispute, and I think such a period would be helpful. Thoughts? ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said above, I think an RfC to bring fresh outside perspective, and a RfM if that doesn't work would be good first steps. I don't think this has boiled over to the point where an enforced cooling off is needed yet.--] 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I object to Wizadry's proposal that I have a 'side' or am involved in any dispute re this entire issue. A review of my edits would verify that I am not. I have also never participated in any of the external debates or usenet groups. I am tired of being dragged into this. ] 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with ]. An RfC may well be a constructive tool (NOT a forum to attack Ilena) to air the case and allow Ilena to learn more about wikipedia ettiquette, as well as the principle of truth vs verfiability. I think a soft ban of users from the Barrett related pages would be premature. Especially for editors such as jance who do not appear to have any direct connections to the topic outside wikipedia or have not shown any bad faith editing. ] ] 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Not to put too fine a point on it, Ronz has heckled Ilena with '''excessive (imho) & tortuous policy reading''' usages since she showed up that can be very anatagonistic, having had milder heckling issues with Ronz' policy broadsides myself that I considered to be with little merit if not provocative. My take is that sometimes "pro-Barrett" editors are playing with fire on WP:BLP issues with respect to Ilena w/o any recognition. I strain to identify, understand and address some underlying issues although I think that I am fairly aware of many relevant factors. I am hopeful that the "baggage problem" of several can be analyzed, mediated and defused to the general betterment of WP and editors. IHMO, this '''"revisit" is divisive, premature and unnecessary'''.--] 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As someone who's been trying to help Ilena, I take great offense at these personal attacks against me. Now's the time to revisit, when it's obvious there are still serious problems, when she's tried to give herself some time to cool off (which I think is admirable), and when the editors that have been helping her feel there's little more they can do without further help or other intervention. --] 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could we see diffs for ] provocations? Or diffs of the ] concerns re ]? There's a simple way to solve the "baggage problem": apply the ] guideline. It exists specifically to address such situations, and to prevent the importation of outside interests/feuds to Misplaced Pages. Ilena's had umpteen chances, and we're still hearing the "Ronz/Fyslee made her do it" argument. At some point, that dog won't hunt anymore and Ilena needs to edit responsibly or face a community sanction. I think we're at that point. ] 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I concur with MastCell, except that Ilena is '''not''' the only party to this, and we shouldn't treat her as such. Such is why I put forth my proposal earlier, as I felt it was a light-handed approach to the situation while sending a clear message. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Peter, this makes no sense. If there are two or more have a conflict, then consider them. However, your arbitary selection of editors does not. Why do you suggest that I, for example, and not MastCell or Ronz, be blocked? I have no more conflict than MastCell or Ronz, even Arthur. So you need to articulate your reasons for your 'selection', and you have not. I am getting real sick of your dragging me into this. ] 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::MastCell: Here is Ronz earlier deletion ''(rv)'' of the (I think) latest related item (for both SBarrett & Ilena R) in contention. This is a critical point for both parties, with SB's constant assertion of defamation, with his admission of "approximately 40" lawsuits in several years(!), it is *the* undeniable counterpoint on Dr Barrett's decades of such assertions & legal demands/threats, all relatively unchallenged in the press. Here are two of Ronz', ' "]" policy dumps", add a few more, multiply it a couple dozen times when they are not compelling or appropriately used, in the middle of tense edits & negotiations, and then flat denial after quoting the policies verbatim, e.g. , ; Ronz' immovable replies: , . Ditto NPOV and others. | |||
| ::::Here is Ronz over-reacting, "being over offended" and starting to "build a file" where my choice is ignore it or likely endure an escalation of noise if I call him on it. Look at the edit links carefully to see if you think that is the basis of a warning. A similar, more focused exchange with '''''', see difs thru . | |||
| ::::"Ilena's had umpteen chances"? I'll agree on a persona that took lots of work, in some senses, never a first chance, where "pro-Barrett editors" policy interpretations were somewhat different than the verbatim policies and Ilena didn't know the rules well enough to back her intuition, lots of frustration. That kind of early clash seems part of the "bipolar" scenery here, I am just bewildered by such hypersensitivity in such a "rugby club". I accept a certain amount of polarzation given the editors' situations. I had hoped to address (Thanks). Lately we seemed close to edit stability, at which time Ilena would proabably lose interest (she isn't going anywhere w/o support). Peter is suggesting COI article bans (just ]? or the ]/ ] / ] series articles too?) perhaps very late in the article's process. I felt like we were close to necessarily coming to closure on the BvR, SB, NCAF articles, when Ilena was already leaving the field, and that someone filing this premature AN/I has unnecessarily turned it into a free-for-all (as above), jeopardizing a quality closure on the articles, & tearing up a lot of hard earned collaboration from over the holidays.--I'clast 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::None of this has anything to do with Ilena's relapse in behavior, nor relates to it. I've listed 20 of Ilena's last 50 edits (covering only 3 days) as problematic. Perhaps you should take your personal gripe with me, which you show goes back a month and spans over 1,000 of my edits, to an appropriate venue. --] 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe the best solution for now is to drop this entirely, and see what happens. I do agree wtih MastCell that the Barrett article(s) are near stability. I don't like the idea of talking about one editor when she is not here, and not causing disruption. Further, in ] , both "pro" and "anti" Barrett editors agreed that one editor was a problem- the article was unlocked, and if that editor causes disruption again, presumably he will be dealt with by admins. I suggest we adopt that plan for this situation, as well.] 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think that's a fine idea. If there's further trouble at the articles, I'd suggest a formal ], since the content disputes tend to be fairly minor. I do want to emphasize that we need to stop making excuses for ]. This is not about Fyslee, or Ronz, or other editors - whose behavior has at times been provocative. Right now, Ilena has had umpteen warnings, in plain English, and has been cut a massive amount of slack. It's fair, at this point, to ask her to take responsibility for her own edits and actions, stop blaming others, and follow Misplaced Pages policy. If she feels she's being harassed, or that Ronz/Fyslee are misbehaving, then bring the matter here, or get an advocate (eg ]) or an outside admin to help. That's how things work, and she's been on Misplaced Pages long enough now to understand that and start playing by the rules. ] 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block for review - Cool maestro== | |||
| I have indefinitely blocked ], who has uploaded scads of obviously copyrighted images tagged with {{tl|gfdl-self}}. He specifically claims to own the copyrights. I hadn't communicated with the user prior to blocking, but others (such as ]) had, and I noticed Cool maestro had blanked those messages off his talk page without responding and was continuing to upload more material. I invite review from the community on this; I've been deleting his image uploads that are clearly copyrighted (and ones that aren't, such as ] and ]) are probably copyrighted but not obviously so. It's my position that if I hadn't blocked him right away, he would continue to upload images he almost certainly doesn't own and create a huge mess that would need cleaning up. Whereas, if he somehow actually owns copyrights to all those movie posters, and yet uploads images with names like "Cool indian", it can be worked out through email, and permissions@wikimedia would need to get confirmation anyway. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ugh, what a mess. Sounds like a good move to me, given the amount of work the user would create if left unchecked. -- ] 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, this was a very appropriate block. ] needs to understand and acknowledge the copyright issues here before continuing to edit.--] 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Endorse block'''. Take a look at the for this user. Numerous copyright violations invalidly tagged with "GFDL self" descriptions. *sigh* ] 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I just blocked {{vandal|Alks}} for precisely the same behaviour with precisely the same images. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm going to see if any more turn up. A RFCU may be in order. ]]]. 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *{{vandal|203.101.184.211}} This IP added content similar to Alks. if this is Coolmaestro's IP we may be able to see what other socks he has ]]]. 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Canvassing for bot approval== | |||
| Section moved to ] | |||
| == Art Dominique sockpuppet army == | |||
| The banned user {{user|Art Dominique}} is a long-standing vandal with a huge number of socks, most of them currently blocked. A series of them were blocked, based on a checkuser report (see most recently archived case from 3 January, 2007) . A newer checkuser was filed for another bunch of socks of this user (4 January 2007), but that checkuser was declined as "impossibility to check". The declining checkuser didn't want to explain why it was impossible. I'm not really contesting that decision, but I still think someone should look at these socks and block them if they think there's a good reason. The connection to Art Dominique is here . As you can see, one of Art Dominique's socks was determined to be a subaccount of {{user|Love is all we need}}. | |||
| * {{user|Love is all we need}} | |||
| * {{user|Eat your carrots}} | |||
| * {{user|Christmas almost here}} | |||
| * {{user|Eat apple a day}} | |||
| * {{user|The rolling rocks}} | |||
| * {{user|Good Afrodisiac}} | |||
| * {{user|Sticking to truth}} | |||
| * {{user|Recorded history}} | |||
| * {{user|Riksföreståndare}} | |||
| * {{user|Erroll Van Dyke}} | |||
| * {{user|Friendly request}} | |||
| * {{user|Let me add then}} | |||
| * {{user|Old lock smith}} | |||
| Hope someone will review these. ] 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Looks highly likely, blocking (even though most are inactive) for safety. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The checkuser declined per a technical reason, which for ] sake, will not be explained further. Checkusers are under no obligation to explain why they delined - most declines aren't even given an explination at all, but rather "{{t1|declined}}. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Take it to SSP if you have to, in the future. Cheers, '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't be shy about posting new suspects to the checkuser page, either. Just because these were declined doesn't mean future checks <insert> ''against new socks'' </insert> will be. There is a rather trivial technical reason why these were declined that has nothing to do with the merits of the request. ] 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just don't post the exact same content again as a copy-paste; ie. the equivalent of a {{t1|db-repost}} :) '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yep, I understand the reason why it was declined and I'm fine with it. I just figured this method would be quicker, before AD logs in and finds all his most recent socks banned, and decides to start using older ones. Thanks everyone. ] 02:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is currently populated by one user. Would it be appropriate to depopulate this? (for obvious reasons) --- ] 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, we depop deleted cats... so I don't see why not. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Some of the other deleted categoriues are re-filling, BTW. I'm more than a little concerned that we have Wikipedians who) basically announce on their user page things like (this is an actual example) "I'm a 10 year-old girl, these are my interests, and this is the part of Canada I live in". ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR with myself? == | |||
| Can you have a 3RR revert war with yourself? I've recently decided to edit a page. I couldn't decide on certain format. I would reformat every so often correcting typos and wikilinks. (You don't have to answer this if the answer NO.) obviously it would be rediculus to have an edit war with yourself... unless you have some split personality. Or what if an administrator thinks you edit something, back in the year 2004, then you revert it in 2005, and then you put it back in 2006? Is there a time lapse between 3RR? --] 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Re your first question: no; re your last: 24 hours. See ]. However, you might want to make more use of the "show preview" button. ] 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It takes two to tango CyclePat. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]. - ] 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can think of a case where you might get blocked for this. Say you edit under your registered name then also as an unregistered IP. If you then violated 3RR under your registered name (against your unregistered one) it would appear to Admins as if you were edit warring and you could indeed be blocked (IMO). THe moral of this story is: Dont argue with yourself. Or at least, if you do, do it under the same name! 8-)--] 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thank you everyone! 8-) If only every case here at AN/I had this "lighter current" of humour!!(Pun intended). A lecon though is that I will definatelly need to work on the "preview" button. Finally, though it's probably funny, I'd actually hate to see a real case of someone arguing with himself here on wikipedia! --] 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Dealing with Cplot edits == | |||
| I happened to see one of Cplot's more recent edits before it was reverted. In it, the Cplot sock says that even though these edits are all being reverted, they are still worth making because they live on forever in the page histories and curious users look to see what has been reverted. I don't know whether that is right or not but I wonder if admins should begin the practice of deleting rather than merely reverting these edits. ] 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, if you want to delete the entire ] and restore it all each time minus one edit each time he does it, be my guest. So, basically, it's impractical. Oversight would be an option though, however, I don't know if those with oversight permissions would consider this a proper use of their abilities. That'd be up to them to decide I'd imagine. ] 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The way the user interface is set up, edits to pages with huge histories like this are much easier to oversight than to delete. On less traveled pages, deletion might be an option. ] 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, until the better revision deletion system for admins is created (rather than the hack we're doing now), it's nearly impossible to delete a ceratin revision from a page with many edits. <strong>]<font color="red">]</font></strong> 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I was thinking more of responding new edits where it's the top one in the history, not of going back through all the old ones. I thought deletion was easier under that circumstance, but please disregard this if I'm wrong. ] 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Could the restore deleted edits page have a button that checks all the boxes? That way you'd only have to unclick the all the ones you want deleted. -- ] 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, but it works fine when using the shift key. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Deleting articles with large edit histories brings the servers to their knees. Remember what happened when AfD got deleted? ]|] 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Uh, could someone explain to me? —] 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like an innocent error resulting from an edit conflict. Clumsy, perhaps, but I don't see a reason to assume it was malevolent. Could re-insert or ask the acting editor for clarification. ] 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good explanation! (I wasn't presuming villainy.) Deletia follows. —] 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems absolutly strange that such an edit conflict somehow managed to slip by, as I thought I used thew '+' to add a new section - I'll experiment in one of the sandboxes (later) to see if I can reproduce it. --] 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I believe that ] would then just gloat about the workload that he was imposing on administrators. In any event, except when a particular version of cited in as somewhere with real importance, such diffs probably have even less importance than, say, comments to LiveJournal.com or to Usenet. Arguably, it's better for the world if ] wastes his time here. ;-D. —] 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible sockpuppet attempting to disrupt AfD == | |||
| See contribs here . No idea who any possible master is, but its rare that a new user would jump right into project maintenance and focus solely on AfD (yes I've read AGF, but that doesn't mean you have to be blind). Here he tries to list a vote count and I point out that Afd is a discussion not a vote and that listing vote counts is not appropriate. In response he does it again . Would appreciate some outside eyes.--] 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This comment pretty much says it all .--] 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've removed the "vote summaries" he's created and asked him to stop doing that. Other than that, I don't see anything much wrong here. Its possible for new accounts to dive right into AfDs. he may be a long time IP contributor who has just signed up for an account (this happens quite frequently). Unless there is more evidence of sockpuppetry I'd let this drop. Thanks, ] 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks appreciate the input.--] 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's a bunch more active in that AfD that are suspicious. I've noticed {{user|Brendan Alcorn}} and {{user|Alan Shatte}} look like long-lost twins. {{User|Paul D. Meehan}} is another possibility, although he !voted delete in that one. I see a heavy influx of Wikicode-savvy editors who only contribute to AfDs/DRVs. ~ ] 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm a Wikicode-savvy editor who only really contributes to AfDs/DRVs. >.< | |||
| ::::Anyway, while that is true, I'm not sure why it's a problem. Sockpuppetry isn't against the rules unless you're using it to make false illusions of support or the like. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's exactly what might be happening here. ~ ] 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Considering their only contributions seem to be to a certain few AfDs, and all contributing to the same ones, I think that is an issue here. A quick look shows them all contributing to these AfDs: | |||
| :::::] | |||
| :::::] | |||
| :::::] (3 of the 4) | |||
| :::::] (3 of the 4) | |||
| :::::] (3 of the 4, for each of the last 3 brendan was the one who didn't contribute) | |||
| :::::Also a couple of them happened to contribute to DRV on PGN on their first day here as well. thats a lot of coincidences--] 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Looking through ], I think I have a candidate for puppetmaster. ~ ] 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You've got mail. I just made that same conclusion.--] 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Bingo. ~ ] 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You're the more experienced one here. Should we bother with a RFCU or is this an "obvious" one?--] 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What's your feeling on this involved user {{user|Thinkjose}} seems our suspected master picked up where this person left off with matching edit dates in october.--] 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So what it appears we have here is: | |||
| #{{User|Paul D. Meehan}} | |||
| #{{user|Alan Shatte}} | |||
| #{{user|Brendan Alcorn}} | |||
| #{{user|Joel_Jimenez}} | |||
| #{{user|Jessica_Anne_Stevens}} | |||
| #{{user|Gisele_Hsieh}} | |||
| #{{user|Brad Guzman}} | |||
| #{{user|Thinkjose}} | |||
| #{{user|Infomanager}} master. Not first, but most edits. | |||
| 1-7 should be obvious. I'm establishing 8 based on the contrib history compared to infomanager's and the fact that its a single purpose account for the article that seems to be the focus of all this.--] 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I want to make the following notes: given the similarities in contribution, 1-7 seem like reasonable assumptions. However, I ask that my IP is checked so that I can be cleared of this. Second, only two of them contributed to the deletion review. The strength of the argument came from others. They also contributed to the other deletion reviews for Dec 30 to Jan 1. Third, yes they all contributed to my article's AfD but they ''all'' also contributed to every other gaming AfD. It would make the most sense to simply strike their votes and not point fingers. ] 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :a check user isn't a get out of jail free card. It just means there is no conclusive proof its coming from the same computer. The instructions for beating it are right here on wikipedia. They all contributed to a variety of other AfDs, but all exhibited the same behaviour which you yourself have done, namely bluelinking your userpage immediately on account creation, and not all of them have participated in all the same AfDs, except for the pgnx one. They've all participated in that. As well thinkjose's contribution history seems to fit rather nicely around your own, he stops editing, you start, then you both happen to edit again in october, then nothing again until this whole deal with PGN flares up again, and he also commented on the drv, which makes 3.--] 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Are you serious? All six of them may not share ''one AfD'' besides PGNx Media, but this is coincidence given that a number of them seem to have gone to everyone videogames AfD and voted, before moving on to the next one on the list! This looks really bad, I admit, but it isn't without explanation. | |||
| :: I would not have sacrificied what I have worked on for months-- especially when the results would be identical otherwise! ] 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm quite serious. It wouldn't be the first time wikipedia has dealt with complex sock puppets or sock puppets used to try and influence an AfD or two. It also wouldn't be the first time someone tried to use their edit history to try and introduce doubt into it either. Name a strategy to cover it up and I'm sure you could find a hundred people here who've seen it. One thing with sockpuppets is there is always a master, and when it comes to AfDs, the master always has something to gain. Usually in removing or keeping a specific article. They've all focused on one article and given varying opinions on other articles, and there are two users who seem to be rather tied into that one article and who's edit histories seem to go rather nicely together. Where I come from thats far too coincidental.--] 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Mortal Kombat 8: 5 contributed, all delete | |||
| Black: 5 contributed, all delete | |||
| Spellborn: 6 contributed, 5 delete, 1 keep | |||
| Masamune: 3 contributed, all "keep or merge" | |||
| xbox handheld: 5 contributed: 3 delete,2 keep | |||
| anime fight: 4 contributed, 4 delete | |||
| jumpstart: 4 contributed, all keep | |||
| There is an obvious pattern here. But they contributed to ALL recent videogame deletions. Because two happened to also contribute to the deletion review is a mere coincidence. ] 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The side articles are mostly immaterial here. Account creation time, general editing habits, and account creation habits (which mimic your own and thinkjose) combined with their one common attention show the true purpose of them. Most sock puppets who are made have some sort of weak attempt at masking their purpose by editing a few other articles, but become rather easy to spot when you find the motivation.--] 08:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm sorry, but I do not agree that they are immaterial. You have not accounted for the fact that some accounts were created ''before'' the deletion review ended and did not participate. You are not accounting for the fact that the sockpuppets voted ''one after the other'' in ''multiple'' AfDs. By saying, "I have motivation, now let me find the evidence" (you claim this when you say it is easy to spot once you have the motivation") you fall victim to ]. ] 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't have to account for that. As I've stated before, its common for someone using sockpuppets to try and introduce inconsistencies in their edit history to throw people off. The point of using them is often to try and get away with it. And if someone were responsible for creating them they'd know exactly the points to try and raise to try and throw the heat off themselves. Step 1 - use a proxy server, then insist on an IP check the moment its questioned. Step 2 - introduce inconsistencies in the edit history then question them. We'll see what step 3 and 4 are. The problem is, regardless of the little inconsistencies in the side articles they participated in, they all have a common interest, and that draws the picture for us.--] 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You are suffering from ]. If an administrator can assume good faith, you can too. Please move on. ] 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No I'm not. Nor have you said anything that would explain it otherwise. You claimed there was an explanation for it all yet I haven't seen it. Instead you gave a few of the comments they made on some side articles, but didn't explain why the PGNx article is the only article they all commented on, not the DRV, but the AfD. We already know that sockpuppet use has a purpose. Disruption of some process, whether its disruption through vandalism or attempts to coerce consensus to your "side" there is always a purpose. Since we know then that the sock puppets must have a purpose, what is the one purpose all the puppets were used for? You yourself admitted that 1-7 were quite obvious, so then what is the explanation? If its not to try and get the PGNx article kept, what is it? We know that vandalism obviously wasn't the purpose here. None of the puppets did that.--] 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I truly wish I knew the answers to your questions. This is my last comment to you. You are a persistent fellow. Good luck with getting the Guildcafe article deleted. ] 09:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I tagged the discussions with {{tl|AfdAnons}} for now. I'll see what else needs to be done tomorrow. I can think of a couple other potential beneficiaries, but the circumstantial evidence looks strong enough to bring this up here without straying outside ]. ~ ] 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : JumpStart (4 keep), Mortal Kombat: 8 and Second Objectives for Black (5 delete). These three however (as well as my PGNx article) were already all keeps or all deletes. Guildcafe article has significant back and forth not found in others. But again, because of the narrowness of their activity, I can't be sure which article(s) were the ones being targeted. ] 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on ] and on my talk page ]== | |||
| * I took this to ], and there it stays. This is not the forum for lengthy discourse whihc belongs in ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Why are we allowing a User with an unacceptable User name to edit? ]|] 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Aryan is a common name meaning "noble". Just because a bunch of ] hijacked the use of the word, doesnt make it "unacceptable". Unacceptable would be like "aryan nation" or "white power" or "black panther".<b>]]</b> 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"818" is Nazi-speak for "Heil Adolf Hitler" (HAH). The combination of the two is not coincidental. ]|] 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ]== | |||
| I know I committed a lot of vandalism. I apologize to all affected. I´m now redemped and going to fight vandalism. Please unblock the IP and the account. Thanks<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> | |||
| :There is a DO NOT UNBLOCK message associated with that IP. ]] 09:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes because i did a lot of vandalism. I´m now on the opposite site. Please unblock.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> | |||
| : The IP you're posting from now has been blocked twice in the last few weeks as well (including once on Tuesday). As such, consider this request denied. In any event, the unblock of an IP address involved in such extensive vandalism should, if anything, be taken to ] via e-mailing the arbitration list. ] (]) 10:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: stating that the IP is in Germany but with contributions in English and to a random Missouri High School suggests an Open Proxy, as well.—] (]) 09:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The does not list this IP as an open proxy. However, its from Germany, so you never know. — ] 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the message from Alkivar makes it pretty clear this is moot. Just as a FYI, the same message is being spammed around at other process pages, eg. ]. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking at your contributions, you don't look like you have reformed much. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] at AfD== | |||
| Probably nothing, but it's worth keeping an eye on... user:CyberAnth has, over the last day or so, been afdingg quite a large number of articles on sexual terminology, irrespective of whether they have sizable, well-written articles. In each case, the argument is ], which would bee all very well if his targets were more general or if the articles in question were all simply dictdefs - but neither is true. Quite a few of the votes have basically snowballed to keep, simply because the articles are clearly not what is being claimed. As I said, it's probably nothing, but - as I said in one of my afd comments - after the first dozen or so it becomes increasinggly difficult to assume good faith. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Despite the use of apparently legitimate Misplaced Pages policies as reasons for deletion, information removal, etc the user clearly has an agenda related to deleting or sanitising Misplaced Pages articles related to sexual innuendo or terminology as can be seen . This user's choice of going against the grain of opinion can probably be most clearly seen on the deletion nomination page for ] at ] ] 11:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think it is serious - please see one section below. ]\<sup>]</sup> 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Hm. I've also noticed a section three or four further up... ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] has been addressing these "well-written" articles on verifiability grounds, and as such xe has a point. However well written content is, if it is not verifiable it must go. It's a shame that so many ''other'' contributors have not made any effort to rebut the verifiability concerns with good sources, but have instead decided to turn the AFD discussions into discussions of the nominator, or have simply cut and pasted rationales with no attempt to address the article and the sources at hand whatsoever. That does not help AFD in the slightest (and I predict, given how often this pattern has occurred in the past, that those editors' failure to address verifiability concerns will result in the articles coming back to AFD again, weeks or months from now). If an editor raises a concern that an article, or even a succession of articles, is unverifiable from reliable sources, and goes to the effort of addressing each of the cited sources explaining individually why they are unreliable (as ] has done at length in several of the AFD discussions — , ) it is ''those other editors'' making subsequent "speedy keep" cries whose behaviour should be censured.<p>I also note that there are a lot of editors on this noticeboard that are not following our ] directive. That one editor has nominated a set of articles, all with related topics, for deletion with a single rationale, is hardly unusual at AFD. This regularly happens when an editor discovers an article that xe thinks should be deleted and proceeds to discover other related articles. None of the editors complaining about ]'s nomination of several related articles have assumed similar bad faith on the part of the nominator at ], for example, even though that is, similarly, a nomination with a single rationale of a group of articles from a single category. And this bad faith ''is'' being assumed on their part. Nowhere in this set of AFD discussions has ] given an actual bad faith rationale, such as a tit-for-tat rationale. Whether right or wrong, the rationales given are evidently good faith ones, attempting to hold Misplaced Pages to our policies.<p>I am the only editor to have added any citations at all to ]. I find it most disappointing that other editors address verifiability and source reliability concerns not by citing and evaluating sources but with edits such as , , and . Praise where praise is due: There have been ''some'' editors, such as {{user|Fram}} who ''have'' attempted to address the actual issues of verifiability and reliability. But their positive ''and useful'' contributions to AFD have been almost drowned out by those whose ''quite useless'' contributions have been not to actually discuss the article or the sources at all. ] 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I've observed this as well. In the past he has attempted to remove article such as ] and ], and yesterday he created AfD's for a large number of additional items. While I think he did identify a couple of cases of poorly written, truly neologistic articles, he tends to cut-and-paste the same nomination statement across a large number of different AfDs. The user has already been told that WP is not censored, and has now been warned regarding ]. In the majority of cases, they are well-written and sourced articles for subjects that have almost obvious notability. This user should be counseled to invest more research in his nominations, and perhaps "practice" with the AfD's that are strongest before mass-nominating many items irregardless of their articles' current quality. ] 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Sounds like good advice. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Your comment is a prime example of the assumption of bad faith that I just pointed out. You state "The user has already been told that WP is not censored.". But nowhere in any of these discussions has ] actually said that it ''should'' be censored. Xyr nominations have been based upon verifiability from reliable sources, elimination of original research, the policy that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, and the avoidance of neologisms. The assumption that this is an attempt to censor Misplaced Pages ''is an assumption of bad faith on your part''. Please stop it. ] 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** I am not assuming bad faith, but the fact that he has focused on articles that fit into only one category is patent; considering that all of them are sexual slang, a concerted effort to remove them meets the dictionary definition of censorship. He has also blanked large sections of certain articles without prior discussion. There's no evidence to suggest that he's interested in improving WP ''in general.'' I am willing to agree that the user is in fact acting in good faith, and that their intent is to improve WP: but that nevertheless does not contradict that their actions have the effect of being censorial and potentially disruptive. ] 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****], it is good editing to remove material from Misplaced Pages that cannot be supported by reliable sources (and some random webpage that mentions a slang term does not constitute a reliable source for an encyclopedia article). I suggest you focus your complaints on specific individual edits and discuss each one on its own merits. --] 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Many if not most Misplaced Pages articles lack references other than Wikilinked terms. Do people look at random articles? I just looked at 10 random articles and found the following with no references: ], ], ], ]. Should I follow CyberAnth's lead, that others have endorsed, and blank the content, or just AfD them and 500,000 similarly unreferenced articles? Editors should not be allowed to selectively apply a policy of Afd or blanking unreferenced content of articles whose subject matter they find distasteful. That would be like a traffic cop selectively giving speeding tickets to only those cars displaying bumper stickers they disagree with and letting the others pass. Selective enforcement of Misplaced Pages policy to only articles in one category is disruptive and harms the project. ] 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******Once again, editors are '''assuming''' that CyberAnth is finding this material distasteful and ''that'' is why he is nominating them for deletion--when he has stated nothing to that effect and instead have given solid policy reasons for his actions. Instead of countering his nominations and his application of those policies, we are seeing a continued strawman fallacy being proprogated and blatant assumption of bad faith. This is incredible. ] 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******'''No assumptions made, no bad faith. .''' — ] ] — 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******We are not required to check our brains and power of observation at the door. When a clear pattern is obvious, we are not compelled to ignore it. ] 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ********No, ''obvious'' is when a user states that they find such material distasteful or think that Misplaced Pages should be censor or something to that effect--nothing of which CyberAnth has proclaimed. OR synthesis, conjuncture, speculation and assumption is when ''you'' assume that motivation in the absence of the '''obvious'''. That is complete opposite of both the spirit and the letter of ]. The only "obvious" is CyberAnth's hardline stance on ] and citing sources. I respect Johntex's approach engage CyberAnth on those grounds and the differing views of those policies. I am appalled when bad faith assumptions are putting words and motivations into an editor's mouth. ] 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ********Some editors get very agitated while trying to defend short Misplaced Pages articles about non-notable topics.....articles for which editors struggle to find verifiable and reliable sources. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. Either improve these short articles, merge what little useful content there is into meaningful larger articles, or expect that there will be honest attempts to delete them.--] 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *********One point to mention is that it seems there's a mass, indiscriminate nomination of articles, almost as if just hoping that some will stick. The nominations are word-for-word the same, regardless of whether they're appropriate to the specific article. An extreme example is the citation of ] in the AFD nomination for ]. The article specifically cites ]. Would a thoughtful, discriminate nomination label a 14th-century term as a neologism? ] 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **********Please cite source to support the idea that it is a 14th-century term. --] 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===24 hour block requested=== | |||
| {{User|CyberAnth}} seems to be on a crusade to eliminate every-single uncited sentence from Misplaced Pages, along with every singe article (apparently including stubs and disambigution pages). I have no doubt that this began as a well-meaning effort. Who among us would not like to see Wikipeida improved through better sourcing? | |||
| However, we have to be reasonable. All stubs are not sourced. Even featured articles contain unsourced statements. | |||
| Rrequests for CyberAnth to slow down a bit have been made in ] and have yeilded no result. The user is continuing ] ] ] for ] that have little hope of succeeding. This is just clogging up AfD and wasting the time of good editors, CyberAnth included. | |||
| Furthermore, CyberAnth is becoming increasingly belligerent and is making . As someone who has been involved in the debte, I am posting here with a request that an uninvolved admin issue a short block to encourage this user to slow down. CyberAnth needs to change this pattern of behavior rather than steaming ahead on a well-meaning yet ultimately harmful mission. ]\<sup>]</sup> 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but he's posting the AfDs ''in alphabetical order''. He's clearly using a list on WIkipedia of some kind. ] (Have a nice day!) 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *With some reluctance, because I'm always reticent to support this sort of thing when I think the editor may be well-intentioned but misguided, I'm going to have to second this request. In the time since the efforts at communication listed above by Johntex occured, CyberAnth's contribution history is filled with things like . This helps no one. Shortly before this block request hit AN/I, I'd posted my own summary of his other recent efforts . Had I done so moments later, it would have been here instead. ] 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user appears to have stopped. Given this, any block would be punitive, not preventative, and this is not "allowed" per ]. On a side-note, and this is pure speculation, I presume this is a little ]-driven (although I'm sure CyberAnth was trying to improve the encyclopaedia by nominating them, however misguided or otherwise the nominations prove to be per ]), and I suspect further that ], ], and the failure thereof, may have something to do with this little period of AfD-nominating. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(lowered the indent jump a bit to make responding more legible) Based on the edit summary for , it seems likely the editor called it a night. I suppose we'll learn tomorrow if the trend continues. ] 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Comment: I note that since this was posted, the editor has put forward ], ], and ]. Clearly the behavior has not stopped. ] 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As much as I support a continual effort at adding refences and sources to articles, I find this effort to be disruptive, rather than collaborative or consensus driven. See related (lengthy) discussion at ]. I think the editor, previously a fine contributor to Misplaced Pages, has gone overboard on a crusade to remove a set of terms that s/he finds unsavory or objectionable, largely sexuality related articles. If an effort, on an article by article basis had been made on many to gain consensus with the editors focusing on those articles to improve their quality, add better references and gain gain consensus with article contributors that would have been better. A wholesale listing of 40 or 50 articles for deletion, or removal of large chunks of an article without prior discussion, all within a few hours period is intended as an ''attack'' to make a ''point''. There is a lengthy discussion by this editor at ] (see referencing padding) that suggests one of the editors motivations. The editor is self-described as "a devoted Christian", a "bibliophile", and as such may view that sexual content of the type recommended by these many AfD's and article blanking would be a positive thing, and that others may feel similarly, not realizing that that view would not be a majority view by most editors. I believe that the editor is well intended, but there is a line between bold and aggressive editing, and intentional disruptive behavior to make a point. Despite the editors previous fine work, that line was clearly crossed here. ] 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I oppose any block of CyberAnth at this time. I wonder what we have come to when applying existing policy in an attmept to improve Misplaced Pages becomes grounds for blocking. Unsourced information is being added to Misplaced Pages faster that it can be tagged with {{tl|unsourced}} or {{tl|fact}}, let alone sourced or removed. As Jimbo said, we need to be more agressive about either sourcing or removing unsourced information. The burden of sourcing information still lies with anyone who wants to keep the information in Misplaced Pages. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with Donald. This is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, any problems can be solved by rational discourse. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **This is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it is an ideologically-driven bowdlerizing purge, as CyberAnth himself. — ] ] — 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not the application of policy that is the issue. The attempt to disrupt articles without prior attempts with editors in those articles is the problem. Correct application of policy, as a tool to make a point and disrupt others is the issue. No one objects to a policeman doing their job. Many people object to policemen using excessive force. This wasn't bold action, it was excessively forceful action. Asked to stop, and participating in numerous exchanges here, and on the editors talk page don't appear to have been effective at communicating that '''lots''' of peoples toes are being stepped on. (so far discourse has not solved the problem.) ] 13:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is an attempt to disrupt, and I am not convinced that it is disruptive. People may reasonably disagree about what CyberAnth wants to do, but I think it's clear that he is working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. If there is no consensus to delete, the pages will be kept. If other editors think the content is notable and the sourcing is adequete, it will be restored. Either way, this is an editorial dispute. Blocking would not be appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It most certainly is disruptive. by CyberAnth without any prior discusion look like disruption bordering on vandalism to me indeed was automatically reverted by the anti-Vandal bot. Thse are just two of dozens of other similar edits. ] 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * You seem to have ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **No JzG, I'm sorry but it is you who has forgotten something here. Assume good faith has limits, and it does not mean we should "have blind faith". We began with a good faith assumption and attempted dialog. That has not worked. The editor is unrepentent. Even the blocking request here takes pain to point out that the editor is probably well-intentioned, but they have lost their way. A block is needed to point out to them that this type of extremeist behavior, in violation of ], will not be tolerated. ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Massive deletion is disruptive and hurtful to Misplaced Pages. This is extremeism. Too much of almost anything is a bad thing. CyberAnth needs to source more and delete less. Sourcing takes time. We build the encyclopedia by volunteers adding what they can when they can as best they can and no one elected CyberAnth to establish deadlines for when things are to be sourced or deleted. CyberAnth should be required to add as much material as he deletes. Balance is good. Extremeism is bad. ] 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If he is edit warring, we have a mechanism to deal with that. The pages he has proposed for deletion will be discussed, and kept unless there is a consensus to delete. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Cyberanth has also removed at least opinion from one of the AfD's, apparently on the grounds that Cyberanth misformed the AfD in his/her haste to put so many of them up at once. Inexcusable. ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Where will the line be drawn? Removing unsourced information is not a difficult task. One user could easily clear out 500 articles per day. Is the line drawn at 1000 "blanked" articles? 10000? Can we let a small group of users take the problem of ] into their own hands? Systematic removal of content is not a good idea. The lack of communication between CyberAnth and the editors of the articles he has been blanking is strong evidence that good faith cannot be assumed. --- ] 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== '''Who is exhibiting bad faith here, Johntex'''? ==== | |||
| Or at least incompetence or - lets provide a gracious option - making big mistakes? You ''appear'' to be merely retaliating, and are twisting the facts - because you do not ''like'' that I am actually attempting to follow policies. | |||
| Let's take a look at your vote at ]. | |||
| There, my nom was for "Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO." | |||
| <U>Here is your "vote": </U> | |||
| :'''Speedy keep''' - nomination is dreadfully in error. <U>There are multiple links from the article to supporting information</U>. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here is my reply to you, which you called "wild accusations": | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard. | |||
| He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one: | |||
| * (also see its root URL at ) - violates ] because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is an anonymously written "reader submission" () and cannot be used per ]. | |||
| * - an Internet Forum per ] "should not be used as sources" and fails because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"! | |||
| * - a BBC article that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus '''Synthesis'''. However, the article would be a great source in ]. | |||
| * - A bulletin board post that clearly falls under ] that "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails ] because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Carefully go over the links above. Carefully look at the policies. | |||
| Now let's look again at your vote: | |||
| :'''Speedy keep''' - nomination is dreadfully in error. <U>There are multiple links from the article to supporting information</U>. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So here we have you voting "Keep" for a page - in clear, blatant violation of one of Misplaced Pages's foundational values, ]. The nomination was in error because of the links, so keep? ''Who'' is dreadfully in error here? | |||
| I too wonder what we have come to when applying existing policy in an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages becomes grounds for blocking. | |||
| ] 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :CyberAnth, you are the one attempting to twist facts, or else you are as misguided about this as you are about your attempts to delete content from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes. | |||
| :When I said you were "making making ", I was correct in so saying. You act as though I didn't explain what consitituted wild accusations. I provided a link. I hid nothing. You were making a wild accusation that my "edits may have been in bad faith...apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies". Yes, those are wild accusations you made. Yes, you are being ]. | |||
| :Also, you are misrepresenting my comment by adding in your own formatting. If you are going to quote me, please either quote me with my emphasis or acknowledge that the empahsis is yours. You are violating ] by exhibiting such extreme behavior. I'm not the only one who has said so. | |||
| :I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. That is a simple fact, which you do not dispute. If you don't dispute the fact, then don't complain about me stating it as fact on AfD. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes. | |||
| :Furthermore, you continue today to be unrepententant and . Edison asked you very reasonably to either not delete his AfD comment or to at least have the courtesy to notify him on his talk page. | |||
| :You need to settle down and play more nicely with others. Your disruption of wikipedia in violation of ] and your repeated violations of ] are more than grounds for blocking. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Support blocking. CyberAnth hasn't apparently done any of the ] on any of these articles prior to AFDing them. As AFD's instructions rather clearly and forcefully recommend that you do so, this spree is in violation of AFD policy. Rampant deletionism in violation of AFD policy IS bad for the project. ] 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In addition to the AfD instructions, the ] likewise places ] issues in the category of ] and prescribes steps to take before proposing deletion for articles that are ''truly unverifiable'', not just unverified. ] to strike a balance between damaging the project by having unreferenced articles and damaging the project by mass-nominating such articles for deletion. --] 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *No need to assume good faith after , in which CyberAnth lays out his ideological motivations. — ] ] — 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :When there are ''literally'' a dozen AfDs submitted '''in a row''' from a user, and all dealing with the same topic (sexuality), it raises eyebrows. See ]. Combined with the above statement, and various uncivil comments in ] it seems clear that ] is not acting in good faith, but attempting to enforce an idealogical agenda through abuse of Misplaced Pages policy. -- ] 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we refocus the converstation to talk about the line between when an article should be tagged as needing cites, and when it should be tagged for deletion. As practical consideration, it is much easier to tag something as needing citations. Consider all the effort by all the people arguing about deleting these articles, consider all the discussion here. If you simply tag something there is usually no argument, and hopefully it will lead to citations being added. So when should an article be tagged for deletion? When it seems blatantly obvious that there is no chance of a good article existing. Anything short of that and you are wasting everyone's time. -- ] 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It looks like the situation will not get any worse in the coming time, as CyberAnth has said to leave AfD for a while: . --] 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest we drop discussion, as the request has failed, de-facto, as no admin has issued a 24-hour block (or any other block), and although opinion weighs heavily towards a block, no consensus was reached. As indicated above, the editor is no longer pursuing massive AfD's and removal of non-cited material en-masse. ] 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur with Atom. Let's let it rest for now and see what CyberAnth choses to do in the future. In the meantime, I call everyone's attention (for a second time) to a ] that might help encourage people to improve first and delete as a secondary option. Looking forward to feedback, ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Agreed. I hope CyberAnth takes this to heart in the future, and I'm willing to AGF on his contributions in the future. -- ] | |||
| ===Another possibility=== | |||
| In situations like this, where it is not clear if there is any consensus developing here at WP:ANI, is there not an argument that a temporary injunction is needed? ie. Tell the editor in question to stop. If they do not stop, issue a block to prevent further disruption. Pass the case straight to ArbCom to seek a ruling on what sort of user conduct is acceptable in this case. The block would last as long as it takes to undo the disruption or for ArbCom to hand down a temporary injunction that would release the editor on 'bail' until the case was heard. An RfC would also seem to be in order, to get wider views on whether this sort of behaviour is acceptable. ] 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Eh, I'm not sure what the admins are making of all this. But he's deleted another user's comments in AFD again (I say "again"; I'm almost certain someone earlier said he had done this), in . It has to be a mistake, since their votes are in agreement, but it appears he's just not paying attention to where his keystrokes go. A word of caution would be nice if he would hear it. — ] ] — 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Careful. What I discovered was going on is that when I submit a post but get the error message "Edit Conflict", I cannot just hit the Reload button on my browser, paste back in my post, and hit submit. Doing that deletes the message that caused the edit conflict. I have to reload the page from the edit link. ] 10:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Deletion review of Ass to mouth=== | |||
| It's too interesting to miss: ] ] 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] - bot? == | |||
| This account was just created and started uploading images (probably promotional ones) - ]. Name suggest it's a bot, so I blocked indef and directed the user to ]. Any second opinions? ]] 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It could be blocked for ], anyways. However, on the point about being a bot, I don't think so - two mins between uploads, no "bot-like" repetition (ie. if they were all tagging with the exact same image upload description etc. it would be more likely) - on that note, the two images should be speedied as no image description, let alone a FU rationale, is included - although the account hasn't done anything except upload images since it was registered (]). Not much to go on, but it's hard to piece together that it is a bot, but then again it's hard to prove it isn't. By the way, the user requested {{t1|unblock-auto}}... '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, the fact that this account is uploading the same images strikes me as bizarre... I still don't know, given the images are slightly different (171/158kb). '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Images were obvious spam. Gone now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block request== | |||
| {{User|Raphael1}} has been warned against readding Category:Anti-Islam Sentiment to ]. He's once again reverted the page against consensus. Could someone please BLP3 him? Thank you. ] 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why don't you change ]? Is Misplaced Pages a democracy or do arguments count? There have been no arguments voiced other than it could be regarded as defamatory.] 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Have you ''read'' ], Raphael? – ]] 16:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I have and there are plenty of references, which confirm my addition. ] 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You've been warned by a neutral party about this already Raphael. I could have placed this request yesterday, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you continue to try to weasel yourself an excuse for ignoring the BLP warning.... ] 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I certainly have not ignored the BLP warning. Instead I've provided Will with references two days ago but haven't heard from him since then. ] 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a noticeboard, not a boxing ring, we have noticed you. No need to argue here, keep it on the talk page. Someone will look into it. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like the article cites numerous references. There is a whole section on the subject at ]. The 'Council on American-Islamic Relations' calls her . If Coulter doesn't qualify for inclusion in an 'Anti <whatever> sentiment' category then ''nobody'' does. Either move to get them all deleted (good luck) or give up the ghost. --] 17:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article cites numerous references, but wikipedia itself does not meet WP:RS nor does pinning this category on a living person meet BLP. ] 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I shouldn't need to go through Mediation to correct the mistakes that are so bloody blatantly obvious. ] 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What about the citations from outside wikipedia? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::ALL of the citations are from outside Misplaced Pages. The Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, Editor and Publisher, CAIR, her own columns, et cetera. They are ''shown'' in Misplaced Pages, but they don't originate here. --] 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Drawing a conclusion is OR. Labelling someone in a defamatory manner is against BLP. These are hard and fast rules, why the debate? ] 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::By that logic ] (and 'Anti-semitism', and all the others) simply should not exist. Yet they do... because such 'labels' ARE allowed when they are properly sourced. As in this case. --] 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I have left a note on Raphael1's Talk. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Arbitration notice''' — This isn't the first time Raphael1 has been disruptive. According to the decisions of ], "Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility." and "Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Misplaced Pages for an appropriate period of time." I think he can easily be banned from these pages he's being disruptive over; if any three of you guys decide it warrants a block under the probation clause, that can happen too. --] 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, I'm gonna have to disagree here. Guy, you said on Raphael1's page that ] requires consensus to include any negative comment about a person. That isn't my reading of the policy at all. Indeed, the word 'consensus' does not even APPEAR in the text of the policy. Our 'living persons' policy requires that negative comments be '''properly sourced'''. We DO have general policies against ''edit warring'' without consensus, but they'd apply to both 'sides' here and have nothing to do with BLP. So far as I can see... addition of the category IS properly sourced here. --] 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per BLP, the subject of the article needs to pretty much state word for word that she is anti-islamic. She has not done so. So labelling her in this manner is subjective, POV and draws a conclusion based on her statements, which equals Original Research. BLP has a higher standard. ] 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further, everyone else in the talk page has pretty much stated "we'd rather that category deleted than have it applied to this article". How much consensus do you need? ] 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe the same amount of concensus which would be needed for ]. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Consensus does not include trolls and POV pushers. Disputed content should be reviewed by other editors and consensus reached. Cited content of unambiguous significance stated in neutral terms is unlikely to fail to gain consensus, I'd have thought. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Heh. Things being accepted just because they are cited, significant, and neutrally worded... you funny man. :] --] 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Including a statement by the biased offshoot of a terrorist group. Very neutral. ] 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Such a description for an ] primarily funded by the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (our ''allies'' BTW) proves the problem all by itself. --] 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 209.244.43.209 == | |||
| I unblocked {{IPvandal|209.244.43.209}} as per . {{User|The Showster}} was caught behind the autoblock on this one. This stems from ]. However, I want to get input on this. I'm curious if I should reblock the IP address with the indefinite expiration time but make it for anonymous only (and disable account creation). Would this be more appropriate? Or should it just be the outright unblock? Thanks, ] 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally IP addresses should not be indef blocked, as they may be dynamic. To find out if any abuse is coming from this IP address, you will have ask a checkuser. Try crossposting this question to the '''Requests for IP check''' section of ]. They won't disclose the names of users on the IP, but should be able to determine if any current or recent users of that IP have been vandalism. ] 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well that's the thing. It was indefinitely blocked by a checkuser. Dmcdevit blocked it on December 10 as a result of the checkuser. My concern is that now that I unblocked the IP because of the autoblock effects on The Showster, a user who is possibly innocent and just got caught up in the checkuser somehow, other accoutns can be used on this IP for further vandalism. That's why I'm posting this here, to see if the block should be reinstated as a more soft block, allowing The Showster to use it without allowing new vandals to be created. ] 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, you should definitely ask Dmcdevit, then. Since he's on light duty for a couple more weeks, I would also ask Mackensen, who is pretty active. ] 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Anon user == | |||
| Just see this anon user: | |||
| LOL, haha, you fuckin loser Wobbs, yeah maybe I am Epf......NOT. Although he shares some views with me on race, hes some dumb Italian-British mut from Canada that actually annoys me. I have used other accounts on here, but with other anon. accounts, not as a registered user (which is allowed by Misplaced Pages since IP #'s change all the time). Hahaha, Wobbs, you are a fool, especially with how you place so much emphasis on those books recently released by Sykes, etc. which are a minority opinion in the world of population geneticists and other researchers. For your information, Racial Reality isn't a "neo-nazi" site you anarchist loser with no hope because your life is meaningless and you don't know ANYTHING on what you read about with these issues. RR is a neutral point of view that seeks to refute neo-nazi, white supremacists, multi-racial, race-denier, assimilationist, biased opinions that influence works including the authors of those books you mentioned. Stick to being a pathetic lab assistant and get a life you fuckin tool and stop vandalizing pages and makin edits to suit your twisted opinons you fool. Hahaha, wow, do u accuse 'sock pupety" of everyone who gets under you skin you douchebag ??? 69.157.107.88 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You can see him at: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wobble#Anon_user_conduct | |||
| What shall we do about him? ] 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Subsequernt edits seem less problematic and responded to warning . I say we watch and wait. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, he reposted an even nastier version of the above again on Wobble's talk page (), so I blocked him for 24 hours for abusive behavior, personal attacks, and disruption. ] ] 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::] repeated the latest set of personal attacks on my talk page and ]'s and as a result has been indefinitely blocked. As I mentioned in my block notice to him, IP addresses used by the editor to evade this block and make further personal attacks should be blocked without notice. ] 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He's now being asked to be unblocked on the basis that if we don't he'll go on an IP rampage and disrupt Misplaced Pages. I'll leave it to another admin to respond to that... ] 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've done so. ] 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also, enjoy . I wonder how he thinks he'll upload a virus onto the Misplaced Pages servers? ] 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''Misplaced Pages allows ignorant and nihilist opinions on its articles which are insulting and detrimental to many people, so I will take down the whole thing. Numerous new IP's and user accounts will be vandalized many articles as possible and I plan to insert my newest virus into the system by "next week".....Also, ''']''', ''']''', ''']''' and others will be '''located''' and '''assaulted'''.''" | |||
| :Certainly there should be a block on sight policy for IP that vandalise the three named users. ] ] 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The last part of that edit could be taken as a threat of physical violence. Given that the IP to ], which is also where one of the named targets, ], is (according to his user page) located, I believe it might be in order for someone to give the a call. Even though it's unlikely that the user is ''really'' planning to carry out his threat, just making it seems a serious enough matter to be brought to the attention of the authorities. The cops can then contant the abuse department of the user's ISP, being in a better position to sort out the matter with them than we are. Anyone in Canada want to do this, or do I have to make an international phone call? —] <small>(])</small> 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ], ] and more == | |||
| I am suspecting that {{User|Enriquecardova}} has recently made edits using these accounts: {{User|Nardelli}}, {{User|Micardis}}, {{User|Zaynata}}, {{User|Wickwick}}. I am not sure if the number of edits qualify for CheckUser yet, but the nature of the edits are very much the same as those of Enriquecardova. ]'s first edit is this immediate talk page message on the ] article and his third is this massive deletion of the entire history section . I am going to revert this edit but if these are sock accounts, I'm anticipating a lot of edit warring because ] has a history of such behavior on ] (see his talk page history as well). He also edited ] using an IP and I asked him on his talk page not to do that (he said he wasn't logged in). We actually appear to have reached consensus on a different issue . I'd like to assume good faith, but given the history of disruption I'm highly suspicious. I'd appreciate some community input. — </font>]] <b><font color="#daa520">·</font></b> ] 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As expected, he began engaging in disruptive editing , . — </font>]] <b><font color="#daa520">·</font></b> ] 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shared Account== | |||
| A groups of students is using a shared account to implement strategies developed off-wiki for intervening in a dispute about the ] article. . Editors of several popular blogs are aware for the situation, and are watching to see if a new precedent is set. As of late 2005, shared accounts were ], and have until now have been routinely blocked. So far, no edits have come from the account, but their stated intent is explicit. ] 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no harm done as of this time. Newcomers are welcome, and we do not prohibit anonymous editting. Is there something specific you are requesting? ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I left a note (hey, it's a wiki!) about shared accounts. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I noticed they have posted the name of the account and the password, but I was not able to log into it. Perhaps they haven't finished the E-mail authorization. Should we block an account before it is created? I suggested that they redo the password as soon as they go into the account, and suggested abandoning it. -- ] | |||
| *I have blocked this account, as role accounts are ] without Foundation approval. I disabled autoblocking, so the students should have no problem creating their own accounts if they so desire (I left a note on the account's Talk page to that effect). --] 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == flaw in anti-vandalism bot == | |||
| I've already deleted twice an article I wrote. The bot has already undeleted it once. | |||
| It's obvious that the bot can't tell when an author deletes his own work. | |||
| The article is Analisis de imagenes=Imagery analysis. I made the mistake of writing the article | |||
| in the wrong version of wikipedia, and have already started the process of translating and introducing | |||
| the article into the spanish edition.] 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *That's not a flaw. It's quite deliberate. You did not delete the article, you just blanked it, which leaves an empty shell. We do not want empty, blank articles left lying around. The proper method for what you want to do is add a tag at the top of the article that says '''{{tl|db-author}}'''. This is the code for "Author requests deletion" so an admin can actually delete the article properly. ] 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Just a quick comment - this sort of thing would be far less frequent if the current definition of G7 on ] were brought up to date. As it stands, it implies that an author only has to blank a page to request deletion. I feel that this needs to be changed to make it clear that authors ''must'' use {{tl|db-author}} to get an article G7'd. ] 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thats not always the way it is used though. Fairly reguarly an author blanks and someone else comes along and adds the speedy notice. ]] 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The bot reverted an ] that I feel was a legit edit. | |||
| ] 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not quite. It might be better to discuss that further on that article's Talk page, but I suspect a "See also" directed to Indoor Soccer would be more appropriate than removing a large section of this article. I see you've already created a seperate article for ] (note improper capitalization) as well. I would suggest putting a <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki> tag on that article for now, and discuss the changes on the Talk page first. -- ] 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Javascript alert on blanking?=== | |||
| It shouldn't be too hard to add some code to ] that would detect if a user is blanking an article and pop up a confirmation dialog saying something like: | |||
| :"''You are about to blank the whole page. If you created this page by mistake and want it deleted, please add the "{{]}}" tag to the page instead. Are you sure you want to blank the page anyway?''" (OK / Cancel) | |||
| Do you think this would be a good idea? —] <small>(])</small> 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Some new linkspam sites == | |||
| There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Misplaced Pages underway from | |||
| "gocurrency.com", "fxwords.com" , and "forextradingllc.com" (the parent organization of these.) | |||
| * (48 links) | |||
| * (5 links) | |||
| These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. | |||
| GoCurrency sales pitch: ''"Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!"'' <nowiki>http://www.gocurrency.com/advertise-with-us.htm</nowiki> Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Misplaced Pages for many of the words in their vocabulary. | |||
| Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. --] 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I suggest a trip to ] to request blacklisting. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Trip successful. Please don't give direct links to spammer sites, because every page with them becomes uneditable after blacklisting. I had to unlink 'em in your post, John. ] 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I removed all of the linkspam and banned the account responsible. --] 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In the future, it might be a better idea to have something added to ]'s blacklist, rather than using the Meta blacklist. I'm not trying to spam my own bot, but I was under the impression that Meta is for more widespread, i.e cross-project, spam. ] ] 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, one can <nowiki> <nowiki> </nowiki> the links. ] 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Revert vandal back == | |||
| Admin {{user3|SlimVirgin}} removed protection on {{article|Universal Image Format}} two days ago and apparently {{user3|Uifan}} has just noticed with his various IP edits. Admin {{user3|FayssalF}} has been involved in the past also and agreed that this was obnoxious vandalism. — <span style="text-decoration: none;">] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :huh? ]] 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==VoABot II malfunctioning== | |||
| ] keeps reverting ] to a vandalized state.--] 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Appears to be an isolated incident, as far as I can tell. I've reverted the page. ] 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::NO, there is a problem with this bot. I caught it today repeatedly reverting blankings on bios. The blankings were by the subject objecting to libels. (The anti-vandal bot was doing the same thing ont he same article). Can't we stop these bots reverting blankings on bios? --]<sup>g</sup> 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Instead of bios specifically I'd prefer a whitelist of users to be implemented, which the bot would not revert whatsoever. That would still block out vandal blankings of properly-sourced information. – ]] 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, a whitelist is easier for AVB, as (I think) it has all admins automatically whitelisted. I think that VoABotII is a lot more lightweight than AVB, so won't have these lists, and they would perhaps be difficult to implement - and the subjects of libel are unlikely to be on such a whitelist. The simple way to solve this is for an admin to protect a page which needs blanking, blank it and then unprotect it - this should stop VoABotII reverting, without the need for quite bulky lists. Of course, the difficulty is getting an issue of libel to an admin's attention, but then again, most subjects of libel seem to know that they can easily email info-en for help. If there are lots of people who don't know this, then we do need a prominent notice somewhere informing users affected by libel to either contact us or leave a message here (which will probably get quicker attention) - something on the article talk page of all bios, maybe? Perhaps an idea would be to have an IRC bot which will relay large changes to biography articles to a dedicated channel (not vandalism-en-wp), where people can sit and check what's happening and revert the bot (or bring it to an admin's attention) if neccesary. <strong>]<font color="red">]</font></strong> 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) <small>If such a bot is needed, I've got some code for a similar task which is easily adaptable</small> | |||
| == Grossly offensive comment == | |||
| I believe an immediate block or at least a strong final warning is warranted for . I suppose it could go to AIV, but I don't think this user deserves four warnings. ] 02:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked, 48 hours. If someone wishes to extend it I would be quite happy to see that happen. ]] 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Probably a vandal account. See edit to ]. ] 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Damn, Jkelly already beat me to the indef-block. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Boy it is fun to be an admin, all the wonderful people you meet! ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Loooongcat is an internet meme associated with extreme stupidity. Banning is the best solution. --] 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I just had a look at the userpage with all the trolling including a "Vandal and proud of it" userbox and was going to extend to indef but someone beat me. ]] 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I indef-blocked; it was a vandal account. ] 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks all. Now who wants to check for all the username variations with different numbers of "o"s? ] 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, that is easy. Use ]. Entering "Longcat" gets . Though it seems they've all been blocked already. Actually, I see that this doesn't produce a list of all the "oooo" variants, as those are not sequential in an alphabetical list. I think there is a list if users by when created, so the "created users" log could be checked to see if accounts like this were created at the same time. ] 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I checked from Lo to Loooooooooooos, and only one Loooongcat. Incidentially, nothing has been done about User:Longcat, which appears to be an for voting on ]. NB. ] is now a redirect to ], explained by a . Interesting what you can find in old versions of articles! :-) ] 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *I'm having a problem at ]. An anonymous user (]) is constantly adding miniaturized pictures of the characters and flag images into the character list in this article. This could be characterized as a content dispute, except I believe the accepted method of handling things like this is discussing and reaching consensus on the talk page, and the user simply does not respond to messages I leave him on his user talk; he simply keeps reverting the page back to his version. While it is only one user, I feel the article should be semi-protected so he will at least be required to discuss the issue in some fashion before making his changes. By the way, he was previously blocked by ] for adding false information to ]; one of his first edits when the block expired was to add that false information back in. ] 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Have sprotected the page for a while. Hopefully this will get some sort of response. If, when it is unprotected he continues then let me know and I will give him a short sharp block for disruption. ]] 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|Kishanjoshi}} == | |||
| The user has appears to be POV pushing using personal attacks. | |||
| * Personal attack 1 in response to a test3 | |||
| * Personal attack 2 in response to reversion | |||
| * User impersionation - and incorrect datestamp. | |||
| * Left a bogus "npa3" on my page after having his first personal attack reverted. | |||
| Looks like a standard procedure here. --] 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I took a small leap here and blocked the user 24h for the third diff above - signing another user's name to any message is completely unacceptable, and I think obviously so even to a newish user. The user's other contribs do seem to indicate an intent to disrupt. | ] <small>]</small> 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Very old copyvio == | |||
| A user, ], brought to my attention yesterday that most of the ] article was originally copied from . This apparently goes back to October 2005, when {{user|Surena}} the ] article. In January 2006, the content was into ], and has stayed there every since, although it has been greatly altered since then. Even though it's changed, is it still copyvio? If so, should the article then be rewrote, or reverted back to September 2005? I'd appreciate people's thoughts on this. Thanks, <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hum. My advice would be... | |||
| ::a) Leave ] as redirect; knock ] back to just before the copyvio was merged in (), and work from there; then | |||
| ::b) see if you can find any other articles the user who pasted it in did this to. | |||
| :Sucks, I know, but the text we have is definitely derived from theirs, and we can't keep the copyvio around even though we've polished it. ] | ] | 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reverted and "back-merged". ] | ] | 04:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, we actually can keep it. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, only works. Reference articles are already not very unique, and if they're re-written, then you've basically used the original work as a reference, plain and simple. It's not the same thing as re-writing something like a poem, which would be a copyvio.<p>I think it's important to ]. It's also important to take into consideration Misplaced Pages's position as a non-profit entity and the use of this material for educational purposes vis-a-vis copyright law.<sup></sup>--] 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's ]. Copyright paranoia has nothing to do with this, it's clearly a copyright violation. Misplaced Pages's policies do not reflect any relaxation of copyright policy because it is controlled by a non-profit organization; since our material is licensed under the GFDL, anyone can use it, not just non-profits. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did read it before posting those comments; it was clearly a ripped-off version of their text. The "rewriting" was re-ordering a couple of sentences and tidying it up; the "history" section read like a second draft of the original. If people had taken the source material and rephrased it in their own words we would have no problem - but they hadn't done this. We were reprinting Columbia's article and passing it off as a) our own and b) licensed under the GFDL, which is plain and simple copyright violation. This is not "copyright paranoia", it's a plain and simple fact. | |||
| :::::Misplaced Pages's educational and non-profit use gives us much latitude wrt fair use, but it doesn't give us the ability to ''relicense other people's material as free content'', which is what we were doing here. ] | ] | 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Now that I look closer, I do notice now that it reads very much like the ''Columbia'' article. I admit that I was going off the summary presented above, rather than my own comparison, and I apologize for that. I withdraw my objections.--] 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No problem. ] | ] | 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've left a note for the original author (who was very new at the time, so probably an honest mistake rather than wilfulness) to see if they remember doing any others. ] | ] | 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|mathworld}} == | |||
| I have tried and tried to ask ] to stop changing the author citation to "first name last name" but he continues to do so. The format we use on Misplaced Pages for references are "last name, first name", as can be seen by ''any'' of our citation templates. He refuses to listen, and won't answer my questions to him directly. See ] for our most recent discussion, although we have discussed this before at places including ], where it was made clear that on Misplaced Pages we use "last name, first name" and he should not change it, but he refuses to acknowledge that. Outside opinions would be greatly appreciated. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have left a note on his talk page. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Great! Should I revert the template again or wait a bit longer? —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Slightly conflicting opinion posted there. Sorry. As a general comment, 'it's in the ] this way' is weak; we can change the MOS. ] 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sock Puppetry, Vandalism & SPAM on ] page == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ===Followup=== | |||
| I would like to bring to your attention of the recent activity on the ] page. Some of the users once in a while will take off information from the site such as the origins of the dance from ], also some of the historical mentionings of the dance in ]. There seems to be some kind of POV advocacy which pops up once in a while. Also, there are some users whom are posting links to advertisements. Furthermore, I have noticed that these users do not have their own user name page. Below are the following user names which have been involved in such activity: | |||
| 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. ]] | |||
| *] (note: possible sock puppetry) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *] (note: deletes information which has already been cited, adding POVs) | |||
| *] (note: warned 3 times for spamming, and blacklisted on wikipedia) | |||
| *] (note: possible sock puppetry) | |||
| *] (note: previously warned for spamming) | |||
| *] (note: possible sock puppetry) | |||
| *] (note: this one actually admits avertizing on wikipedia - ] | |||
| == Extremely Annoying situation == | |||
| I have also posted messages on the ] page after each incident. Much work has been put into this topic with cited sources. This continuous POV editing, deletions, and Spamming does not help the article one bit and is becoming a nuisance. Hopefully this will stop. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| ] 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions. | |||
| == Crazy wacky funtime == | |||
| ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] ] | |||
| All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{tl|unblock}}", which was met with ''more'' threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me). | |||
| ] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at ]. :-) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == IP vandalism == | |||
| :] —] 06:52, 7 January 2007 (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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| ::Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support. ]]] 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- ] 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. – ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| :::Sweet Fancy Moses. ] 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? ''That'' is creative. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:00, 7 January 2007 (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) | |||
| * This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This user is flooding my page when i tell him to stop i don't know what else to do and he is insulting me in Armenian. I also tagged his images for deletion since he's marking them Pd-self and he's getting them from websites i found and administrators deleted them but he puts them back up. | |||
| 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) | |||
| He's insults. | |||
| :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 == | |||
| "Do I need to tell you everything? '''Khent'''! Lara is another person in akhtamar.org. Dont get smart with me I know there is Maral there '''esh'''!" | |||
| Khent = Stupid, Esh = Jackass (I can ask an Armenian to verify if you want or anyone else.) | |||
| I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| *{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
| This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
| Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Trödel == | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| This user and I got into a dispute over my nomination of Val42 to be an admin. This dispute was originally being discussed on Val42's user page, then Trodel decided to switch it to our personal user pages. I believed, today, that our dispute was finished, but then he left me a comment tonight that was a threat against both myself and Val42. Apparantly Trodel got so angry with me that he has threatened to block me for alleged trolling and he has threatened to oppose Val42's nomination for adminship simply because I was talking with him over this dispute. I do not believe my remarks were rude, but if they were I would apologize, but he would block me for trolling, which i quite simply am not doing. He has not actually done it yet, but This is the channel that the wp page about threats directed me to, so i am posting it here. If any other admin reads this, please help me out here, because I do not want to be blocked because of the power tripping of Trodel. Thank you. | |||
| :To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
| :I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
| :As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
| :I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
| :In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
| ] 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I just found out that he removed an addition to an article that was disputed and resolved some time ago. I believe this is a covert personal attack, as it was his first edit after threatening me, and he had no previous history on the page. the page in question is ]. ] 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Having read the arguments, I don't think you were trolling. However I do believe you turned friendly advice into a percieved personal attack and then beccame quite beligerant about it. It would do you both good to calm down. Incidentally, what Trodel was saying about the nominator needing to be of good standing IS a common requirement for people !voting on RfAs. That is not a reflwection on you, but on your experience of wikipedia and therefore how well you can judge a candidate. (havent looked at the second issue yet) ]] 09:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| ::I agree with that, and I did concede that point. I suppose it appeared as if I took it personal, although that was not the case, but that is not what this issue is about. He is threatening em at this point, after I conceded the dispute. After I said that he was right, he then threatened both myself and him. I'm worried that he is going to block me for something I did not do. I woudl even apologize for this misunderstanding but he would block me if I did. ] 09:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am going to contact Trodel and ask for his take on the situation. ]] 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <s>::I have reviewed the article. The section that was removed was unsourced, speculation and smelled like ]. If it makes you feel any better I have removed it. ] 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC),</s> In fact I appear to have lost the edit conflict but the result is the same. --] 09:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::My take on that (which I hope will be confirmed by Trodel) was that either, it was unrelated to the dispute or that he came across the article in your contributions (it is fairly common to look at someones contributions to see what you are dealing with) and decided that that section was as stated by Spartaz and removed it. ]] 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well i still disagree with that, but as part of my resolution regarding it, I will not say anything about it. However, as it was buried far back in my contributions, I do not see how he just came upon it, particualrly as it was the only such edit.] 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is multiple incidences of editing the actual article and even more of editing the talk page. And all your contributions can be brought onto one page (show 500) making it easy to scan and have a quick look at the articles. ]] 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have less than 100 mainspace edits - which is only two pages of the usual (50) view. Hardly buried. I wouldn't feel so sensitive about it - we all get reverted all the time. Its a wiki after all. --] 09:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==CyberAnth Redux== | |||
| While I am amongst those who felt that ]'s selective mass-nominations of late were a bad idea (and possibly censorial, but let's not continue that here), I also find the recent focus on ''his'' articles by other editors to be a poor idea. I am sure that the editors involved only have the improvement of Misplaced Pages in mind, and therefore are acting in good faith; nevertheless these nominations may be perceived as a form of reprisal, and are likely to further polarize the issues. ] 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hear, hear. ] 11:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Agreed. All that will do is escalate the dispute. If people want to make a note and come back to them in a month then that's fine, but I don't see how this is anything other than ]. | |||
| == |
== ] Semi-Protection == | ||
| ] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The nominator has his nomination of this article for deletion, but did so by blanking the page. Is it not better to have the discussion formally closed by an administrator? ] 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just closed it as withdrawn by nom. ] 13:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Underage images posted to ]== | |||
| Last night I reverted changes in the pictures at ] ] and explained why to the user who has made the changes (]). The user has since indicated on my TalkPage that they were photos of himself. I realise now that this may be a slightly more serious problem than the usual vanity postings in this sort of articles as the user identifies himself as being 16 years old on his UserPage. The photos thus constitute child pornograhpy in many jurisdictions. They were originally uploaded to Commons not here however, can an admin with sysop access on Commons delete them to prevent them reappearing in future? The images in question are: | |||
| ] | |||
| ] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I was just comeing here to post that, myself. Even if the user is actually above 18, the caption of the photos states that the subject of the photo is a teenager. While the AOC in Europe is 16, in the USA, where Misplaced Pages is hosted, it is 18. Best to delete the images, in my mind. ] 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:34, 24 December 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
| 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
| 1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
| 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Obvious sock threatening to take legal action
VPN socking blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. Liz 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User
" . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)
- Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it
, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
- Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since
2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
None of this matters
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus
There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
- As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
- On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
- Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
- Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73:
"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
- Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
- The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
- This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
- This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
- I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
<--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
- And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
- So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
- The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
- If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
- Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
- Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
- At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to
WP:Don't be a dick(looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
- And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
- Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
- Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
- Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for closure
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages,
{{under discussion inline}}is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
- Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Mgtow definition
Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of WP:GRENADE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of "typo" indicates to me that they are here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
- As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries
": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories
", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. - Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the
|blp=and|living=parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Augmented Seventh
User:Augmented Seventh is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
- After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
- Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
- Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
WP could be sooo much better. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also
How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"
- because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j
Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64
Blocked for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy
I've protected the page for 24 hours. @Rambling Rambler and @Hellenic Rebel are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow dispute resolution processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
(nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks
/24 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 166.181.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive
Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?
There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
- Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172 was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
- Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 was blocked in 2018 for one month.
- Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122 was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
- Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
- Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16 was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
- I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Locke Cole
No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. Star Mississippi 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.
- I replied to this with
What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.
- I replied to this with
Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.
- And I replied to this one with
Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.
- And I replied to this one with
This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) EF 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
bolding policies I've added at the end
- I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. EF 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? EF 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User talk:International Space Station0
Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. Liz 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized Spore (2008 video game) by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
- Or is that just something that isn't done? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Promotional content about Elvenking (band)
There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. @Elvenlegions: please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. Star Mississippi 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. Liz 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...
User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
- Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
- Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
- A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
- Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
- Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
- Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
- https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
- Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on When the Pawn... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
- Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Bunch of racist IPs/account
Sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment
- GREEKMASTER7281 (talk · contribs)
- 112.202.57.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 186.154.62.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Urgent need for page protection on BLP
Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a content dispute going on at Kay Granger involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article
Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.
This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.
- E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't include all notable alumni in these lists
Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again
Genre warrior sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (1, 2) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- /64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:NoahBWill2002
NOTHERE blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- NoahBWill2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It looks like there's a pretty severe competence is required issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/derivative works, adding their own art to Fan art (and then doing it again after being warned), or adding personal opinion to articles. Lastly this comment is quite inappropriate and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this.
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)
I think admin action is warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Vandal encounter
This IP seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:GDJackAttack1 mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places
GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs) has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (example), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (example), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at this AfD. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are phantom settlements.
There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their talk page consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Glenn103
Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
TPA for 83.106.86.95
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
83.106.86.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you please help?
William Swainson got moved from William John Swainson (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at Talk:William John Swainson, and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at Talk:William Swainson. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. Oholiba (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.
- @Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
- Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
POVPushingTheTruth
The truth may set you free, but WP:THETRUTH will get you blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:POVPushingTheTruth is clearly NOTHERE. C F A 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
- Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
- The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
- The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
- The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
- Ongoing Disruption:
- Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
- This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
- Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
- Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
- Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
- Impact on the Community:
- The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
- These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
Request for Administrative Action:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
- Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
- Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources
Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @Ratnahastin over the content in the the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The editor removed significant content, citing User:Sitush/CasteSources as justification. Here are my concerns:
1. Misapplication of Policy:
Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:
The removed content was based on British Raj-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:
Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "AI-generated" and warned me about sanctions under WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, discouraging collaboration.Check here for the warning
Evidence:
Request for Administrative Action:
1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -Their Diff) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@Ratnahastin) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request (please find it here) for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
Best Regards
--- Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Nothing to say about me really bot
Locked (non-admin closure). C F A 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- WilhelminaBlosse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per m:NTSAMR. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Concern About a New Contributor
Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dear Wikipedians,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
- Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
- By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
- She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
- Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
- •
- •
- •
- •
- and many more
- Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @BusterD,
- It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
- Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Remsense,
- I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Simonm223,
- I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can't both criticize someone for
lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL
, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
- In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S-Aura, how did you make the determination
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages
? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) - S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence
- Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.
Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:
| − | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks | + | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla. |
This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.
After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)
| − | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks | + | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;... |
My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all. — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
- I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
- The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
- When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
- The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
- I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
- Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
- Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.
- Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
Followup
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.
I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng
Extremely Annoying situation
Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.
The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.IP vandalism
Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user: user:76.67.115.228 seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrainman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example irisChronomia (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at WP:AIV. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page
User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ⇒SWATJester 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Insults
I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.
Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Ratnahastin,
- To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
- I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
- As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
- I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
- In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: