Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nutez (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 11 August 2022 (→User:Bedford: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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)

• 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?

BerkBerk68

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a lot of strife between (and within) different ethnicities and nations in the West Asia region. That is why we have no less than three different DSs: WP:AA2, WP:KURDS and WP:ARBIRP (sometimes WP:ARBPIA overlaps, but usually not a lot). Crucially, there are also blind spots that are not covered by these Ds (like here), but still involve the same opposing groups of editors (btw, I brought this West Asia DS blind spot problem to the Committee before, maybe I'll find the WP:ARCA for it later).

And like with all other DSs, each opposing group wishes to highlight descriptions, scholars and sources favourable to their historical narrative. In that respect, this OP falls short to demonstrate WP:TEND. It may be that, but this report fails to explain why that is clearly enough. There are multiple examples listed, but not that much is said concerning their veracity. I'm an historian, albeit a 20th Century historian, and I can't tell what's what. Quoting one example listed:

Sultanate of Rum; "The Sultanate of Rum was a Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state"

BerkBerk68's addition; "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was a Turkish state founded by Oghuz Turks following Turks’ entrance to Anatolia"

Well, did they (Oghuz Turks) or did they not found it? Doesn't help that there are no diffs or even just dates for these quotes (i.e. when the edit was made). Asking reviewers to do the OP's work for them by compiling the diffs of these examples also falls short. And ditto for asking reviewers to figure it all out from the talk page/s. That is why this thread has languished and seen little input outside topic area regulars. That's why the wider community have not come around to build the consensus for the OP's T-BAN proposal. A proposal which an admin is not allowed to impose single handedly (again, an WP:ACDS blind spot). To sum up: there are no conduct issues highlighted, so I'm chalking it (maybe in error, who knows) to a content dispute that ought to be figured out by normal WP:DR (i.e. WP:DRRs like an WP:RFC, a post to WP:RSN and so on).

Anyway, it's been a couple of week, so I presume most participants in this threads probably realized that the T-BAN is not happening (again, OP too inaccessible). But over the last few days, it has sorta became (not expressly here, but still) an issue of how long will BerkBerk68's request at WP:PERM/EC will be delayed, or maybe even declined. I'm the admin who revoked his perm due to WP:GAME. Looking back, I presume it was due to the dumb stuff at Diana Parikian, but whatever, it's been long enough. Edit count is imperfect, anyway. I've added thousands of words in a single edit before for content that I drafted and proofread locally. So I'm reinstating their WP:XC user right and otherwise closing this thread without action. I'd urge everyone to watch their biases (except for me, never!), but . El_C 19:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

BerkBerk68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the talk page sections of Talk:Turkic history , concerns were made against its neutrality, including the addition of groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns), with the only person being an advocate for inclusion of these groups being BerkBerk68. However, 4 users opposed this, and thus mention of those groups were removed. What does he later do? Completely ignores all the discussions there, and proceeds to make the article even less neutral, restoring mention of the Xiongnu and Huns, as well as other stuff . For example, recently at the Talk:Timurid Empire, he showed his dissatisfaction with the word "Turco-Mongol", only wanting it to say "Turkic" instead. I responded to him, showing that WP:RS says otherwise, etc. In his addition, he added the very proposal he had made in the talk page, completely disregarding my reply as well as WP:RS. Let me just show some few examples of what the main articles say versus his own additions:

Qajar Iran; "Qajar Iran was an Iranian state ruled by the Qajar dynasty, which was of Turkic origin"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Qajars were a Persianate Turkic royal dynasty,"

Sultanate of Rum; "The Sultanate of Rum was a Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state"

BerkBerk68's addition; "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was a Turkish state founded by Oghuz Turks following Turks’ entrance to Anatolia"

Mughal Empire: "The Mughal Empire was an early-modern empire that controlled much of South Asia between the 16th and 19th centuries."

BerkBerk68's addition; "Mughal Empire was an early-modern Persianate empire with Turkic origins"

Khwarazmian Empire: "The Khwarazmian or Khwarezmian Empire (English: /kwəˈræzmiən/) was a Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Khwarazmian Empire was a Sunni Muslim state located in present-day Iran and some parts of Central Asia, ruled by the Khwarazm-Shah dynasty, which was of Turkic origin."

As you can see, he tried to reduce the non-Turkic mentions and/or increase Turkic mentions, i.e. WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

Other concerning stuff;

Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in WP:RS , but once again he didn't care.

Wanted to minimize the use of the term 'Turco-Persian' here, completely disregarding the vast WP:RS in the article that supported this very term. He also ignored this and proceeded add a even more POVish version in Turkic history: "The Seljuk Empire was a Turkic Sunni Muslim empire"

Tried to portray a political tactic as some sort of "early Pan-Turkism", completely disregarding a vital piece of information in the very WP:RS source he used . Even now he is still completely disregarding WP:RS and following his own personal conjectures/opinions

Based on all this, it seems that BerkBerk68 is here on a mission to Turkify articles rather than build an encyclopedia. I'm gonna be blunt here; I suggest a topic-ban in all Iranian and Turkic related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to mention that I have not noticed his comment on the main article of the Timurids and I have told that already at the Turkic history talk page. I even told him that he can fix Timurids and openly imply that I am agreeing with him .

About Xiongnu and Hun situation at the lastest version written by me, I utterly reject that I am trying to Turkify them, I have never claimed that Xiongnu or Huns were Turkic, I just added the claims (with underlining that they are claim/theory), genetic researches and the non-primary sources about Chinese historical records, similiar with the Turkic peoples model. I have not also pushed or reverted the calendrical history deletions after the calendrical deletions got the majority on talk page (including a deletion without achieving consensus here , I even tried to save the lastest version of calendrical informations (that the disputed subjects are already deleted) by opening a new article and opened a talk page discussion instead of rewriting it.

I thought that "Turco-Iranian" would fit better for Afsharids because the reference itself says Empire's origins are based on a Turkic tribe, and Afsharids used Turkic language as official military language just like many other Turco-Iranian civilizations. I didn't even make an edit, I just expressed my thought on the talk page.

I didn't even understand what exactly is the problem with Nader Shah's Turkmen policy, reference is Iranica there. ("Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations." "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals." "Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." )

I also mentioned that I am trying to support the encyclopedia, I am just interested in Turkic topics just like how HistoryofIran is interested on Iranian topics. BerkBerk68 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is here on a mission to Iranify articles. All of them are sourced informations. Also we reached consensus on that page. But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge. Belugan (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran isn't here on a mission to Iranify articles. Patachonica (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Right? My goverment, right Belugan (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Down below you were already told twice that off-wiki links are not helpful in this situation. Also, I'm not sure how a link of someone being dissatisfied with me and accusing me of loads of stuff is helpful. However, it's clear that you have been stalking me for a very long time, which is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is about the article Turkic history

Firstly, if one has disputes about certain sections of an article, they are free to talk about it on the talk page. Reverting an ENTIRE edit just because one disagrees with what is written in SOME parts of the edit is not feasible. A consensus must be reached in the talk page if one is going to reverse a 50,000 byte edit just because they disagree with SOME parts of the article. It is uncivil and is bound to lead to edit warring, which will lead to grudges. All of this has been seen in this particular case, as evidenced by the talk page of the article (specifically the thread titled "Calendrical Timeline") and the locking of the article.

Onto the concerns stressed by HistoryofIran . Quotations come directly from the edit. There were two main concerns; the Xiongnu and Huns. It isn't pushed forward by the edit that the Huns and the Xiongnu were Turkic. Instead, BerkBerk68 states that Chinese Han sources *CLAIMED* that the Xiongnu spoke a proto-turkic language ("It was even claimed in Chinese Han records that the Xiongnu spoke a Proto-Turkic language"), and also provides the opinions of other scholars;

"It is also a popular thought among scholars that Xiongnu is most likely to be a confederation of different ethnic and linguistic groups"

The concern here has been addressed. Nothing is definitively pushed forward, and multiple ideas of differing scholars have been presented.

Now onto the Hun section;

"Hunnic armies led by Attila, who had conquered most of Europe, *MAY* have been at least partially of Turkic and Xiongnu origin.

"Huns were *ALSO* considered as Proto-Mongolic and/or Yeniseian by some scholars*"

Again, multiple viewpoints stated, nothing definitively pushed, thus is not contradicting the Hun page. No concerns to be held here.

However, since I am not biased, I sided with HistoryofIran on their concern with multiple parts of the article, and have, for example, amended the Timurids section and stated that the Timurid Empire was a "Persianate Turkic-Mongol" Empire, instead of "Persianate-Turkic" Empire, as it is written in the original article.

• I was about to amend nearly all of their concerns stated in their now archived post in ANI when I had finished reading them, but was unable to because of the article being locked due to edit warring.

• IT IS ALSO TO BE STRESSED THAT THIS IS A NEW EDIT

Thus, the previous concerns are not really valid anymore as the previous article is COMPLETELY different to the new edit, which contains claims of differing scholars which are are sourced with new, reliable, and arguably unbiased sources since they are not Turkish & thus there's no chance of there being pan-Turkist biases. It is also NO LONGER pushed forward in the edit that the Xiongnu and Huns were Turkic, unlike the original version of the article. The previous concerns are months-old, I have read them. The additions are very similar to what is written in the main articles of the Huns and Xiongnu - that the origins of both people's are disputed, and that scholars state they COULD be Turkic. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that they ARE Turkic. And this is further stressed by the inclusion of differing opinions on the origins of both peoples from many different scholars.

The article is no longer as biased like it was before (the previous edit was a carbon copy of the Turkish article. There's bound to be bias, and thus concerns were raised in the talk page about Xiongnu and the Huns. This has been eliminated with the new edit, though).

It is to be acknowledged that there are parts of the edit which are inconsistent with the original articles of some topics, which is why I support and suggest that admins restore the edit made by BerkBerk68 since it is the closest to what we will get of a detailed article on Turkic history, and amending it where necessary. Thanks. zenzyyx_

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to . One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your answers were inadequate as you did not acknowledge that the edit solved the question of whether the Huns/Xiongnu should be mentioned in the article - it should as it isn't being pushed forward that they were Turkic, but that they could be. Thank you for admitting that you did not read how the edit solved this issue, this just proves you've been blabbering on about "concerns" without even reading how the Xiongnu/Hun problem in particular has been solved. Yes, let's leave it to the admins. zenzyyx_

Sigh, even the fact that they could be Turkic was also rejected, I’m not sure how many times you to have be told that. Pretty rich of you saying that I am the one blabbering. HistoryofIran (talk)

The fact they could be Turkic is NOT rejected and is still pushed by many scholars of the West, as evidenced by the sources provided in the new edit, and in the main articles of the Xiongnu and the Huns. Ignorance really isn't bliss. zenzyyx_

Youre not even following. It was rejected to be in the article by 4 (veteran) users in the previous discussions just this month - you know, an actual community discussing, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS. Ignorance truly isnt a bliss. HistoryofIran (talk)

In the original article, it was pushed forward that the Xiongu and the Huns were Turkic. This is what is talked about in the talk page. The new edit introduces multiple perspectives and does not state that they are Turkic, but that there are scholars who believe they are. Mentioning this doesn't contrast anything - and even if a few people came together and decided that it shouldn't be mentioned, nothing is set and stone. Misplaced Pages is a hub for debates, and thus views of multiple scholars on issues are required. The only thing correct in your statement is the last sentence. zenzyyx_

Let myself repeat myself for the 6th time: 4 users were against inclusion of those two groups no matter what. Why? Because their origins are disputed. Also, the original version which was removed also mentioned other perspectives, at least for the Xiougnu. WP:CIR. HistoryofIran (talk)

Let "myself repeat myself" for the billionth time (might want to read WP:CIR yourself), their origins are disputed, and this is stressed in the new edit which provides multiple perspectives to their ethnic origins. We're going around in circles at this point. Again, nothing is set and stone, Misplaced Pages is a place where debate is facilitated, and thus a consensus reached by 4 editors can be challenged. zenzyyx_

It can be challenged indeed, but that should be in the talk page first, just like the first time (WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, which you keep ignoring), not by forcing it onto the article, which you participated in. HistoryofIran (talk)

I constantly told you to create another section in the talk page about your disagreements with solely mentioning the Xiongu and Huns instead of reverting the ENTIRE edit, but of course, since you're biased against the Turks (as evidenced by all your edit wars in Turkish-related articles), that never happened. Anyways, there's no point continuing the discussion any further. It will only lead to more ad homs being used. I suggest we end the conversation here and leave the ultimate choice to the admins as we've cluttered this ANI. zenzyyx_

You lose the argument and proceed to accuse me of being biased against Turks, classic. As for the rest of your comment, you just keep proving me right about your WP:CIR issues. HistoryofIran (talk)

You've got it all wrong. The fact that you see this as an argument is just sad and proves what kind of an editor you are. Again, you've got it all wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything, I know for sure that you have an anti-Turk bias, as evidenced by all your edit wars relating to Turkish/Turkic articles. zenzyyx_

So edit warring in Turkic articles = anti-Turk? Thanks for proving that you shouldnt be taken seriously. HistoryofIran (talk)

Haha, no. It proves that you're obsessed with erasing anything Turkic and replacing it with Iranian (as seen in the Hun article, which you have heavily edited). Anything Turkic seems to bother you for some reason, as evidenced by your numerous edit wars in Turkic-related articles. So I can comfortably come to the conclusion that you have great bias against the Turks and the Turkic people. zenzyyx_

For the record:

Belugan's first comment at ANI was made at 20:43, 26 July 2022; BerkBerk first commented at 20:43, 26 July 2022; Zenzyxx first commented at 20:45, 26 July 2022. All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?

I have checked edits of User:Zenzyyx on Turkish Misplaced Pages, he doesn't have much edits, his first edit was a letter replacement on Alexander's article. He changed "varisi" (successor) to "varişi", which is not a Turkish word, he probably thought that the proper word was "varışı" (arrival), which is completely irrelevant to the section. He also doesn't know the "i/ı" difference, which is a major difference on the Turkish vocal. We have talked about a song in Turkish Misplaced Pages yesterday, he expressed that he is Sephardic Jew (He had major grammatical errors there too) and that is pretty consistent considering these datas.

Calling people that has different opinions "Turkish irredentist", There is obvious WP:ASPERSIONS at the comment unsigned by User:LouisAragon. BerkBerk68 17:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My account is 4 years old. It really is funny how you accuse me of being a Turkish irrendist when I'm not even a Turk. How sad (for you). zenzyyx_

• "But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge."

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance, and thanks for admitting that you are trying to import these IRL-related grievances (Sevres Syndrome?) into Wikipdia. That's the problem with people swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states; they believe everything is a conspiracy.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states" = like '4000 years old Iranian state' propaganda by Dictatorship of Iran? that you spread. Belugan (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

State funded negationism? And "we" (I don't even know who is us) believe in conspiracy theories? Oh please, Turkish government banned Misplaced Pages and blocked Turkish Wikipedians to contribute on the development of the encyclopedia for years. I seriously hope that you don't have any stereotypes on people according to their ethnic origin. BerkBerk68 21:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zenzyyx and @Belugan participated at the Turkic history debate on talk page, they would ofcourse be aware of the ANI. The absurdness of this argument is that you have made your first comment at 21:09, 26 July 2022‎ right after HistoryofIran's one at 21:06, 26 July 2022‎ and you have not even participated on talk page. I do not claim anything, I am just telling that the argument mentioned can be used with different perspectives. BerkBerk68 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Highlighting the bias of an editor who persistently gets into edit wars in articles anything-Turkish/Turkic isn't an IRL grievance, is it now? Biased editors ruin Misplaced Pages, and thus deserve to be exposed on here. Hope to see a Misplaced Pages without them - but, of course, that is not possible. zenzyyx_

You have not presented any evidence of off-wiki Reddit or Twitter threads that prove HistoryOfIran is biased, and even if you did, we are not interested in any off-wiki disputes. Only diffs here on Misplaced Pages are acceptable as evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that Zenzyyx's comment is related with Belugan's claims. BerkBerk68 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

one of his false accusation from a Persian user Belugan (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, off wiki disputes matter nothing here. In fact, neither you nor zenzyyx have provided any diffs at all, as far as I can tell. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table at all, then this report is without merit. If you think that is in error, then reply with an actual diff link, rather than having to resort to off-wiki links because you literally have no evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance Cherrypicking nonsense, I didn't admit anything. You can easily find sone Arabic or Turkish people complain about HistoryofIran's bias edits in anywhere of social media and you can also find meatpuppeting by some (hmm guess who :)) in Misplaced Pages community with Telegram groups. Don't try to manipulate community with these nonsense arguments. Belugan (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

We aren't interested in what off-wiki users on social media have to say; you must provide evidence of bias within Misplaced Pages itself, not on other unrelated sites. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "hmm guess who :)" No, you tell us - with evidence - or (...) No-one here is interested in your insinuations. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess he was just a banned trolling user that created a new account. BerkBerk68 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that Belugan (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being not here to edit Misplaced Pages, per the thread above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Not surprising, thanks. BerkBerk68 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Back to topic

This report has steered too much into the direction of off-topic as a result of excessive bickering, some of it instigated by a now indeffed account. I'll make a quick TLDR of the most relevant bits of my report; BerkBerk68 completely disregarded the WP:CONSENSUS in Talk:Turkic history (everything was discussed here ) by re-adding groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns) , a edit which also added several entities, however now with more Turkic/less non-Turkic mentions compared to its (well-sourced) main article counterpart (which I demonstrated in the initial report). I would appreciate it if someone would look into this mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user (@Zenzyyx) a "Turkish irredentist who is influenced by Turkish government propaganda" at his unsigned comment (WP:ASPERSIONS).

I've already mentioned that the Huns and Xiongnu sections of the edit written by me doesn't violate WP:POV since nothing has been claimed definitively; rather, it contains differing points of views by different academics. Theories, Chinese historical records and recent genetic researches were mentioned with the emphasis of the controversial situation. Let me also add that I have always supported that Huns and Xiongnu should be included on the article, not just because of the controversial claims about them being Turkic but also because of their influence on Turkic history, culture and civilization. I have already explained how and why several times (can be seen at the talk page @HistoryofIran mentioned).

Since the article was unsuitable for Misplaced Pages's standard (WP:MOS), and with the lack of consensus, I wanted to introduce a new, much more detailed and properly sourced edit. I put the Huns and Xiongnu in their own sections ("Early historical affiliations") to further emphasise their controversial origins and did not state that they are Turkic.

I again have to reject all claims positing that I am Turkifying the Huns and the Xuongnu. I just added their affiliation within Turkic history and included related theories, alongside multiple other theories relating to their origins, clearly expressing that nothing was definitive.

Regards, BerkBerk68 11:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user..."

I said: "All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?" As usual, your edits are loaded with nonsense making stuff up. Good you brought this up though; more evidence of your disruptive edits for admins to see.

• "WP:ASPERSIONS"

Nope. If you'd only read the policies you are so keen to cite: " If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." The ANI case here is littered with verifiable, egregious misconduct on your behalf. So no, zero "aspersions". Its a verifiable fact that all three of you are pursuing such an editorial pattern. Belugan already got indeffed for it based on solid policy judgement. As user:Black Kite sensibly stated: "There are far too many red flags, from familiarity with obscure Wikispeak from the get-go, to the use of "we", to the reference to off-wiki collusion with like minded editors."

• "...at his unsigned comment"

It wasn't "unsigned"; I adjusted part of my comment that I had already placed and signed. More WP:NOTHERE.

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68; Yes, you have multiple times stated that you did not present the origin of the Xiongnu and Huns as definite Turkic. That was also what you stated the previous time. We get that, however consensus was still that they shouldn't be there no matter how it would be spinned, which you were told countless times (here for example ). What do you then do? Proceed to re-add them and repeat the very same old argument (WP:REHASH) which was already rejected. Frankly, it seems that you simply dont care about community input, and only follow your own personal opinion. And I am certainly not the first person to notice that . And thus I have reported you, because time and time you have proven that words (whether its from scholars or users) dont get through to you. Misplaced Pages is a collaborate effort, not a individual one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that Misplaced Pages is a collaborate effort, that's why editors had to improve the new appropriate version together instead of deleting it completely when three different users were supporting the new version on the talk page while you were the only one who didn't support the new version. I am open to discuss the article to develop the encyclopedia together, I openly supported you on Timurids topic. As it's mentioned above, I wanted to write a new version and introduce it to the editors of Misplaced Pages due to lack of consensus (especially about Xiongnu and Huns) and I actually got positive feedbacks more than I thought. However, you just kept reverting the version. Let me also remind that I haven't reverted any of the edits, just discussed it on the talk page.

Regards, BerkBerk68 17:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, even still now words are not getting through to you. You shouldn't have added that version in the first place before discussing, as there was indeed a consensus, which you even now keep ignoring. Yes, as I've already told you at least 6 times, I reverted you because it violated the previous consensus as well as WP:POV (per the diffs) even more this time (there is also WP:ONUS which you have been told of multiple times). And no, it is not my job to fix your mess, as you also have been told . Either fix it yourself, or expect it to get reverted. There are no guidelines that says I have to hold your hand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain which consensus are you talking about? I don't think a consensus was achieved, every recent sections ended up with endless conflicts.

"it is not my job to fix your mess" The new version was more suitable for the encyclopedia (WP:MOS) and it's written by one editor, if you are not willing to develop the article together, then you should leave it to the other users of the community. BerkBerk68 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't have added that version in the first place, as you've been told countless times. The fact that you still think like that and consider a version riddled with WP:POV as more "suitable" says it all really. I'm tired of explaining stuff to you, one may begin to ask whether there are underlying WP:CIR issues as well. I'll wait for an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it's your decision to participate or not, I have already informed you about all my edits and openly called to participate on developing the article. Again, it's your decision, it doesn't bother me at all. BerkBerk68 14:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Belugan was an obvious troll, I have already expressed that , his actions doesn't bother actual editors who want to develop the encyclopedia. Calling editors "irredentist" or "swallowing state funded negationism" just because they have different opinions than you is not WP:CIVIL, and again, WP:ASPERSIONS.

Ironic, because you did the same with Belugan, said "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" on a threatening language, and you didn't answer my questions when I asked about the situation. From your language it seems like there is an "off-wiki collusion with like minded editors" just like how Black Kite described, especially considering you did not participate on the lastest section of Turkic history talk page. @Black Kite, I believe that this information should be considered at the case.

Regards, BerkBerk68 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh please, you didn't say anything about Belugan's problematic behaviour till he got indeffed. In fact, even after his block you were still supporting him (just like he had been supporting you), writing a unhelpful comment in a thread that was closed . But now he's suddenly a problematic troll? Also, if you're planning on accusing someone, I sure do hope you have diffs, otherwise you are being no different than Belugan in violating WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Anyways, let's not deviate again, the only users which should be talked about are you and me. If someone has other concerns, please take it somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I writed that comment because of the absurdness of the claimed conspiracy. I have never defended Belugan's arguments, my only comment on his case is related to Afsharid Empire since it was the topic. But what Louis doing here is accusing editors with misbehavior without evidence, and his threatening comment at the talk page increases the confusion.

He told "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" while he did not even participate at the talk page discussion, only user that participated on his side of arguments was @HistoryofIran and now he is actively siding with him here. I am not claiming anything, I just want a clarification to the community to end the confusions just as I did 2 days ago .

Additionally, this subject is directly related to the case and it's my right to ask these questions. A clarification is necessary.

Regards, BerkBerk68 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You are literally insuating that I am doing something fishy - you are the third user in this report to accuse me of something alike, and the third to do so without any form of evidence. I could also very easily point out even more questionable stuff regarding you, but I rather stick to direct evidence in the form of diffs, as seen up above. This is nothing but WP:ASPERSIONS. As for your comments in relation to Belugan, I’ll the admins be the judge of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not insuating anything, I just express my confusion and ask for a clarification from @LouisAragon since days. Threatening other editors using "we" phrase is confusing and not WP:CIVIL. BerkBerk68 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who just skimmed through the conversation here may I suggest a way of short circuiting a prolonged conversation that runs the risk of getting out of control? The talk page has a large amount of discussion with differing views which can make it hard to see exactly what is going on and which bits need to be changed. This may be one of the times when a formal RfC with a closure on the talk page is the best way forward as it would allow for precision when it comes to exactly what changes to make and would open it up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC to help with any concerns about bias. As always, feel free to ignore my advice. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he doesn't react. Just as I expected. BerkBerk68 07:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Request closure

I know this report is hard to follow, especially due to much of it having roots in another talk page, as well as due to the excessive amounts of unnecessary bickering (myself included, sorry for that), but can an admin please check and close this? It would be much appreciated. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI: there is a PERM request to restore extendedconfirmed open at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed#User:BerkBerk68 - I'm inclined to grant it unless there is some exceptional reason not to from this discussion. If so, please leave a note there when closing this. — xaosflux 21:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Case is inactive since over a week, it would be nice if an administrator takes a decision. BerkBerk 11:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Weird, thought I had already updated the report so it wouldn't go into auto-archive, but it did. I just restored it, hope it's okay. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Style warrior

A significant proportion of User:Aonbheannaigh’s edits regards their evident personal, style-only preference for the usage of the Oxford comma. These are largely or entirely in instances where its absence is an equally valid style choice, there is no issue of ambiguity to address or the use actively goes against the consistency of style used in the given article. No meaningful explanation of any supposed necessity for the change is given in edit summaries. Requests to desist and warnings that the campaign has become disruptive have, after initial inaccurate responses, been ignored. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this page in red, an ANI Discussion Notification must be posted to the talk page of a user when an incident regarding them is posted. Please be aware that this is not optional. I have posted one to their talk page as a courtesy to you both but please be attentive in the future. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, my oversight entirely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

They have continued to add Oxford commas since this report was started. I suggested to them that they should be part of the conversation here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

And they are continuing to add Oxford commas and mark their edits as minor. Gusfriend (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And again today, on both counts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They made two responses to posts about their editing on 27th July with nothing at all since, despite numerous attempts by multiple editors to elicit a dialogue. They are evidently determined to continue their edits in like manner. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We just went through this, and in fact are still going through this, with the passive-voice obsessive (see tail end of WT:Manual_of_Style#Fallout_from_ANI). This kind of obsessive style-warrioring (if that's a word) needs to be nipped in the bud. EEng 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There was a bit of a hiatus the last few days but the editor has resumed, evidently paying no heed and making no response to the concerns expressed above. Could somebody move to closure please, with the implementation of any appropriate sanction? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors

User:TylerDurden8823 mass changes the term "alcohol abuse" to "alcohol use disorder", even though they are different things. Misplaced Pages has two seperate articles for it. The article Alcohol use disorder says, "This article is about chronic alcohol abuse that results in significant health problems. For alcohol abuse in general, see Alcohol abuse." So basically, the user assumes everone who (ab)uses alcohol has a disorder which is factually wrong. Even if it was correct in certain cases, it would be an unsourced change. A previous talk page discussion was blanked (Special:Diff/1101915733#"Alcohol_abuse"_to_"alcohol_use_disorder") and an ongoing one ignored (Talk:Stevie_Ray_Vaughan#"Alcohol_abuse"_vs._alcohol_use_disorder). Even if you interpret both terms as synonyms (which wikipedia doesn't do, as again, we have two seperate articles), it would still be an unnecessary change as "alcohol abuse" is a perfectly fine term to use, and it would be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- FMSky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not because "I don't like it". The discussion was over and my talk page had become very lengthy (people had asked me to archive my page for some time and it was becoming burdensome). There is no reason to regularly use the term alcohol abuse since it is stigmatizing when a perfectly reasonable less stigmatizing alternative exists. I'm not sure how you decided that Misplaced Pages doesn't interpret both as synonyms, the dictionary does, but regardless of whether you see it as an "unnecessary change," is merely your own opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Even if Misplaced Pages has two separate articles for it, that doesn't make it factually true. As below, you have acknowledged that it is a synonym and contradicted yourself. You were unable to provide a compelling case for why the term "alcohol abuse" is necessary over alcohol use disorder before too and remain unable to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I regularly abuse alcohol, but do not have a disorder? Good point. I agree, these are not the same. We aren't all teetotalers.PrisonerB (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said that I am a teetotaler nor that everyone should be. I am sorry to hear that you regularly abuse alcohol though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Your opinion here about whether these terms are synonymous is irrelevant. High-quality sources say they are (see below). Misplaced Pages reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these are NOT synonyms, and @TylerDurden8823: should NOT be making such changes. Use disorder is not the same thing as abuse, and we should strive to reflect what the sources themselves say. If the source says something is "________ abuse" we should use that phrasing, and if the source says something is "________ use disorder" we should use that phrasing. They are different things, and should not be used interchangeably. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? See the following quote from alcoholism: "Because there is disagreement on the definition of the word alcoholism, it is not a recognized diagnostic entity. Predominant diagnostic classifications are alcohol use disorder (DSM-5) or alcohol dependence (ICD-11); these are defined in their respective sources." The NIAAA also says you're wrong here with a direct quote: "It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism." Merriam Webster agrees too, FYI "NOTE: Alcohol use disorder ranges from mild to severe and is typically considered to encompass conditions also referred to as alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol addiction, and alcoholism." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I warned him about this previously (probably 2 years ago) and was basically given the impression I needed to piss off, I just hadn't gotten around to following up. But this is a very long time problem. It would take a lot of time to go through and fix everything he has done. But they aren't the same, and he has been extraordinarily disruptive with it, to the point it will take someone going through his edits to fix it. I can't see just letting this slide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because your warning and conduct were inappropriate and you didn't interact well and come across as disrespectful. I have not been disruptive about it and you seem to misunderstand the differences here. Please see the quotations from very strong sources below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

just looked it up, yikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TylerDurden8823&diff=1018259691&oldid=1018215721 --this is a bigger problem than i'd originally thought --FMSky (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and your objections are all inappropriate. They are appropriate substitutions. It is the name for the disorder. As I have discussed in several places, it is backed up by numerous sources. I think you may need a hobby rather than wikistalking me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes great thats a name for the disorder. What does this have to do with people having abused alcohol on occasion? --FMSky (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There are clearly defined criteria for what constitutes alcohol use disorder. A person can qualify even if it's periodic. So, you're admitting then that it's a name for the disorder and thus a synonym. Great, that's progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A name (not even the name, that would be "alcoholism") for the disorder yes, synonym to alcohol/substance abuse obviously not. --FMSky (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you really going to try and debate what constitutes a synonym with a nonsensical semantics argument? Please see the dictionary's definition of a synonym here . I do not see why you are clinging so desperately to unnecessary stigmatizing language when you have acknowledged on more than one occasion that alcohol use disorder is a synonym, even in this thread. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

not a synonym. the end --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself and flying in the face of the dictionary and other strong sources, FYI. This now just seems like stubborn refusal because you don't like it. Seems hypocritical to me to cast aspersions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when this is the display I'm seeing. How about you address the actual sources I have provided? You have now acknowledged that they are synonyms twice and then backpedaled and contradicted yourself both times.(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget to focus on content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't, but it doesn't prevent me from pointing out contradictions and a pattern of behavior directly aimed at me since they decided to open this can of worms back up and aren't leaving me alone.(talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Didn't someone called 'TylerBurden' just get ARBCOM banned? Is TylerDurden a second cousin or something? 🤔  Tewdar  21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue. Unrelated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies then, just a coincidence.  Tewdar  21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that there's no connection there, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel (and movie) Fight Club. Tyler Burden is just a play on the name Durden, but both are (presumably) named after that character, one just decided to make a play on words with it. There are at least 6 editors that contain TylerDurden or Tyler Durden at the beginning of the name (which is honestly way fewer than I expected), but it's a popular character in certain circles so it's very much just a coincidence that two different editors happen to have a similar name around that theme. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• In light of Tyler's comment about being a physician who has treated many people with this disorder, as well as his objection to the 'stigmatizing' nature of the term 'alcohol abuse', I suspect we might be in WP:RGW territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nonsense and I don't appreciate the focus on character. Please focus on the content. As I have said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the stigmatizing term nor seen it disproved that alcohol use disorder is a synonym. The facts remain what they are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let me ask you this way: is it possible for a person without an alcohol use disorder to abuse alcohol? Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I refer you back to the definitions provided. But yes, if it has been under a year since alcohol use disorder refers to a slightly more longstanding pattern of this kind of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, based on how we use this term on Misplaced Pages and widely in other sources, they are largely considered synonymous (see the many sources I have provided). If someone abused alcohol and then stopped for a few months and never did it again, I suppose that would be the exception to the rule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that one is a disorder and the other an activity; I understand your argument here, but there is a sense in which they are synonymous (understanding "abuse" as a habit or ongoing activity) and one in which they are not (understanding "abuse" as an independent incident). By my lights, it is worth preserving that distinction for encyclopedic purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the disorder encompasses that. I still have yet to see you address the sources provided. Please do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So, if I were to say "we have to stop alcohol abuse at fraternity parties," you would understand that I was making a mental health plea? Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the phrase "alcohol abuse" can indeed be used as a substitute for "alcohol use disorder," but it can also be used to refer to discrete activities. In my "fraternity" example above, I would understand the phrase to refer to overconsumption at said parties without reference to the mental state of those involved. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the comments above carefully. I didn't say that they can't though others have and that's the point. Even though I would understand what you're saying in the sentence above, it would be more correct to say binge drinking or high-risk alcohol use. Again, this really seems like splitting hairs. Out of the articles I edited, I have a feeling that examples that your specific example would apply to here, if any, would likely be in a very small minority at best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick gander, the only recent example I find is Stevie Ray Vaughn's father, and while I certainly understand your point, for me, anyway, I would slightly prefer the "abuse" language. It strikes me as something closer to an objective, observable fact. "Alcohol use disorder" strikes me as more like a diagnosis from afar, even if it is one that makes a great deal of sense. In everyday life and common parlance, I think you are right, but on Misplaced Pages where I believe in epistemic humility, it strikes me as just a bit too far. It's like some (admittedly obvious) WP:OR. I'll be the first to say that medicine is not my forte, but I think this is an instance where we need to hew closely to the sources. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a common misunderstanding I see, even sometimes among experienced editors, where someone thinks that some sources equating two things in the general case mean that we can do so in each specific case. This may be true for terms that are strictly synonymous. Like if RS agree that a wrench and a spanner are the same thing, and one source says "The Queen always carries a spanner", it might be acceptable to state that the Queen always carries a wrench. But for academic terms like these, not defined the same way by everyone, with meanings that have evolved over time, that doesn't work. If you're going to say someone has alcohol use disorder, you need a citation saying that they, specifically, do. Anything less is WP:SYNTH. If Tyler can't see that, then I'm inclined to support a TBAN. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that you have to have the source use that exact terminology when that is the name for the disorder. Please address the specific sources specifically saying that these are direct synonyms and the massive contradiction that we use the term "use disorder" for every other substance other than alcohol (despite many sources in the laypress continuing to use archaic stigmatizing terms-it's a mixed world out there and addiction medicine remains very misunderstood). We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. Your internal logic here has some major holes in it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. That's not acceptable either. Neither is saying that someone has major depressive disorder based on sources saying they're depressed, antisocial personality disorder based on sources saying they're a sociopath, etc. If you don't understand that, I worry that a TBAN from alcohol might not go far enough. And it's not my "internal logic". It's the logic of this community in creating SYNTH. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with your premise and it falls afoul of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. I'll tell you what though-I think I've had enough of the malignant policies and people on Misplaced Pages. I think I'll just stop editing altogether. You may do what you wish. You'll continue to lose veteran editors if you keep this up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, to be honest I would go a step further to say that Misplaced Pages's psychology articles have an especially hard time distinguishing psychopathy/sociopathy from antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. I agree it's not acceptable, and this is only made harder by the overlap between criminal psychology and clinical psychology and their real-world disagreements that are in my experience difficult to represent with due weight in-article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not commenting on this discussion but clerically noting that I have fixed the links in the original message (they were broken raw links as the last parenthesis was being treated as part of the link) and made them wikilinks to the intended destinations. --TheSandDoctor 23:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I will point out that academically speaking the words are not synonymous. According to , Alcohol misuse is a broad term that incorporates a spectrum of severity, ranging from hazardous use that exceeds guideline limits to misuse severe enough to meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) ie. they are not synonymous, and do not even overlap as far as defitions go since alcohol abuse/misuse refers to subclinical AUD. In the interest of a less biased term, I would suggest "alcohol misuse" and "alcohol abuse" are synonyms, and I think the first is less stigmatising (this is just my opinion though - I don't know what other people think). AFIAK, the term "alcohol abuse" has fallen out in academia in preference for "alcohol misuse", and I believe it is probably to try and dodge the stigma, although I haven't seen any evidence it's actually achieved this. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have not done an exhaustive check, just a dozen or so recent edits from TylerDurden8823's recent contributions. I do not see a mass of inappropriate changes. Most of the changes I looked at appeared reasonable, if not necessarily necessary, and were associated with a large number of minor copy edit improvements during the same edits. This does not tick the boxes of "mass edits" for me, considering that there were other edits interspersed. Also, most of the reversions also removed all the improvements as collateral damage. I would say the reversions I looked at did more harm than good. I do not know how many of the other people commenting here have inspected the actual changes under dispute, or how many they have checked, or how many of the cases of changing alcohol abuse or alcoholism to alcohol use disorder were actually inappropriate, taking into consideration that I also think that there is a difference between alcohol abuse as an activity and alcohol use disorder as a medical condition and alcoholism as a poorly defined non-medical term. To those of you who have not personally checked, I suggest that you do so. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposals

I'm proposing a topic ban from all topics regarding alcohol, broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. This is a long time problem that won't get fixed any other way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's way overkill and not appropriate. The edits I have made are completely appropriate and have not introduced factual errors. I wholly disagree with your assessment and sense a clear ax to grind. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That you can't understand the problem is why a topic ban is necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Adding support for psychiatric disorders due to new evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reason. Or just never making that edit again, but that would be hard to monitor --FMSky (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

For anyone reviewing this, I again refer you to the aforementioned sources showing that Dennis, Prisoner, and FMSky are wrong. Here are just a few more showing that they are, in fact, synonyms by definition: , , (suggesting these terms can be used interchangeably from a very strong source, NIDA), , (analogous to how we use opioid use disorder, not "opioid abuse"-we literally do this for basically every other substance use disorder and appropriately so).

While I haven't thoroughly analyzed all of those sources, I wouldn't put too much stock in the Dictionary.com definition. While it says that the disorder is 'characterized by alcohol abuse or or dependence', I do not interpret that to mean that all forms of alcohol abuse are necessarily connected to the disorder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's up to you but that's the weakest of the sources provided. Merriam Webster is a much stronger source and says the same as do sources like the NIAAA. Your argument sounds like a pedantic one that misses the intention behind the definition you're quoting. Cleveland Clinic disagrees with you as does UPenn . TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm making an honest effort to help sort out this dispute, and it's requiring a little bit of extra effort to fully understand what these terms mean and whether they can be used interchangeably. You may deal with these issues on a regular basis, but the rest of us don't. If you could actually answer Dumuzid's question, that would help all of us to better understand your point of view. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on how you originally entered the discussion, I did not get that impression since it felt like you immediately started commenting on character. If that's the impression you want others to have, then perhaps consider a different approach next time. I did answer Dumuzid's question. If you could read the sources I have provided (most of them are not that long) before commenting further and seeing that there are numerous examples that are directly saying that they're synonymous, that would be great. That would be more helpful to truly trying to sort out the issue. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I will peruse the sources when I return to Misplaced Pages later this evening. Or perhaps not. Talking down to me is not the best way to get me to do extra reading, and I think you'll find most other people here are similarly unimpressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Talking down to you? I think you need to re-read your initial comment and really decide who spoke down to whom here. I just don't buy this feigned I just wanted to help innocent comment after opening with a comment on me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders. The discussion above does not leave me with faith that Tyler is able to edit in line with out policies and guidelines in this topic area. I actually don't know if a topic ban from alcohol in particular is necessary, if this topic ban is enacted; color me neutral. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on alcohol, broadly construed - Conflating alcohol abuse with alcohol use disorder is problematic WP:SYNTH. It's worsened by the fact that such conflation could lead to something like a BLP being described as having a mental disorder (alcohol use disorder) when the really don't have it. It also appears as though Tyler is not willing to acknowledge he is wrong or even agree to stop doing this, which is WP:IDHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed We do not need tenacious axe grinders misbehaving for years in a certain topic area. If the disruption spreads elsewhere, I will support a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on alcohol and drug use issues, broadly construed. I would expand the TBAN beyond the OP. Tyler hasn't limited this to alcohol, this is representative, not exhaustive, and if we narrow this TBAN to alcohol, it will continue for other issues as well. As a side note, they have taken their ball and gone home, though I think the TBAN discussion should continue since they could return at any time. --Jayron32 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed - I have no opinion about a topic ban on the broader drug issue or psychiatric disorders (though the above comments from Durden are not reassuring that there won't be an AN/I discussion later about these things in a broader sense) but what is well demonstrated is that there is an ongoing issue with alcohol that needs to be addressed, and a topic ban is the most narrow solution which will solve that without having to resort to flat out blocks or bans. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders even if it will be moot as long as Tyler stays retired, which is certainly his prerogative. It's a shame to see a veteran editor leave on such terms, but nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well ... I'm not supporting because there's plenty of pile on without me, but if I had a dollar for everyone at ANI who slaps "RETIRED" on his or her user page in the wake of a filing not going their way (most of whom slink back after a few days or weeks), I could go to the corner pub and get thoroughly hammered. Ravenswing 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Striking my support upon further consideration. The underlying issues are clear as mud to me, and in retrospect I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion. I don't want to see an editor get unjustifiably sanctioned (retired or otherwise). I think this thread might have taken a very different direction if Tyler hadn't been so doggedly combative, but that's not a sufficient reason to topic ban him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support because of the continuing problems.PrisonerB (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from medicals as a whole. There is clear evidence of disruption more than just alcohol. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like this whole discussion is overkill. We're dealing with a situation in which terms have multiple meanings; also, we're frequently dealing with lower-quality sources (e.g., journalists who toss in whichever term they're familiar with, or whichever term a family member used, without verifying that this is, in fact, the completely and precisely correct term). And since some editors believe that term X means whatever Miss Snodgrass told them, and some editors believe, as an article of faith, that we should blindly follow the sources right off a cliff even if we know the source is wrong (or at least not so precise that we should rely on it for fine distinctions between closely related, overlapping, and sometimes contested terminology), and yet other editors believe that term Y is highly preferable because some other sources say to normally prefer Y over X, we are... going to topic ban someone who turned several highly viewed medical articles, including one on a serious and common psychiatric condition, into Misplaced Pages:Good articles?

  This might not be a proportionate response to a reasonable difference of opinion.

  In case folks haven't reviewed the edits in question, let me step you through two:

  The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions:

  • "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing)
  • "chronic alcohol abuse" five times
  • "long-term alcohol abuse" once
  • "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name)

  If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me. AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.

  This disputed change took a sentence that's probably got a Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing problem, and changed the plain-text words "teen drug and alcohol abuse" to a link to the nearest relevant article, "teen substance use disorder". Is this perfect? Maybe not. Is the cited source (in which the author says things like "I guess what they say is true: Everything is bigger in Texas, including their ignorance on the effects of such laws") perfect? Definitely not. Is there a material gap between "teen drug and alcohol abuse" and "teen substance use disorder"? Reasonable people could disagree, but the statement is going to be factually true (i.e., in the real world) regardless of whether you link to Substance abuse or Substance use disorder, and the reader's IMO best served by having a link to one of those pages, instead of having no links, which is what the reversion created. (Also, Misplaced Pages is best if we could please avoid copyright problems, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing, and reverting back to the prior too-close-for-comfort version is Not Actually Helping on that score. I'm going to assume here that the reverter didn't bother to look at the source, because the alternative is worse .)

  I think this dispute might have reached a productive resolution if the editors involved had tried contacting editors who know something about these subjects (e.g., Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine) before trying to process this as an alleged rule-breaking incident. I wonder whether that might still be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just re-read this "argument":

  The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions: "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing) "chronic alcohol abuse" five times "long-term alcohol abuse" once "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name). If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me.

so basically, "alcohol use disorder" wasn't used once in the article but somehow you conclude that this is the term that should universally be used?.

"AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.'" - and that seems like WP:OR to me. --FMSky (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

FMSky, you are missing the point. At AN/I we are not here to work out what the correct/ideal wording should be. WAID examined the source to demonstrate that it used many different terms for much the same thing, and noted the original text may have plagiarism issues. WP:OR says:

Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.

So editors are permitted to use terms and words that do not appear in the source. Whether the original text or modified text "retains the substance" is not trivially obvious here. I'd suggest that an actual doctor with experience in this domain might have more of an instinct about this than just some random person on the internet. That doesn't mean they are right but some people here weirdly seem to think knowing something about the subject you are writing about should be held against him and all the more reason to topic ban them. Clearly some editors have strong opinions, and yours are very likely influenced by the investment you made with 100 reverts and complaining about the other guy at AN/I. We all then know that you and all the other folk with pitchforks and torches are unlikely to back down, in this forum, for obvious reasons. That makes this a crap place to have a discussion about the best wording for pathological alcohol use in our articles. I think WAID has demonstrated that a reasonable person paraphrasing the sources may have chosen the wording Tyler did. You are paying special attention to that edit because it changed the wording, rather than if Tyler wrote the whole paragraph originally. I'd really advise backing down on continuing to argue at AN/I and instead, if you do care about how we should word the terminology surrounding pathological alcohol use, then join the discussion at WT:MED (which won't be concerned with who is right or who should be sanctioned). -- Colin° 09:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I also want to call out the drift from what I said ("reasonable people could disagree...sounds plausible to me") to what FMSky said in reply ("you conclude that this is the term that should universally be used"). Hmm, I'm pretty sure that I didn't say anything that goes any further than the one article/one source I discussed, and I didn't even "conclude" which term "should" be used in that one sentence, much less which term "should universally be used".

I point this out because it's very easy to slide from narrow particulars into pounding on the table about the end of the world (anyone who wants to write a warning essay about this could likely fill it with examples from my own posts), and, even though it's a mistake I've made repeatedly, it is also a mistake that I think we should resist. There might be a certain dopamine rush when we jump from "She didn't fully agree with me about this one sentence" to "I gotta defend the whole wiki against these people who don't even believe in <shared value>!!!!1!!!!", but our community works best if we don't misrepresent the opinions of other editors, even if that makes for somewhat more boring, fact-based conversations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a reasonable suggestion. · · · Peter Southwood : 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• agree as well w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Me too. I'm also interested in precisely what the scale of this mass editing is. The editor could have made three edits or three thousand from the evidence provided. I'm also very interested if there has a detailed discussion of the distinction between the terms... and how much the editor was involved in this discussion. I'm aware that content discussion can take a long time, and I'm not sure this is the correct forum, but it does rather feel like people have come to a conclusion here without much reference discussion of wht is right and wrong. It also strikes me that the terms "use" and "abuse" are very likely to be used within the literature for "political" purposes, so it's unlikely to be an open and shut case. Darcyiscute's source above seems like a good source on this , it has a summary of the terms in Table1... which does make things a little open and shut, but I wonder if this is simplification or editorializing on the part of the author. Talpedia (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point about to what extent that source editorializes the terms. So I've had a closer look at the 2016 review, which says which says: This table is adapted with permission from and uses terminology from the DSM-IV for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, and from the DSM5 for . The source table was abbreviated and updated to reflect the DSM-5 terminology for this report in collaboration with Dr. Jonas. If this is a faithfully reproduced table, then I have no reason to believe the review editorialized the definitions. The is referring to , which is a standards recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, so for at least the US I believe this is a secondary source faithfully reproducing these 2013 standards and representing academic consensus on definitions, which in turn were largely based on the DSM-5 and ICD-10 at the time.

They mention a more detailed report of their methods is described at , which says: The operational definition of drinking limit guidelines varied across studies. Studies typically defined limits by a weekly total of standard drinks (eg, <20). (More detail on page 33).

There are a few nontrivial questions which I think would be best established at RfC (I do not think ANI is the right venue for this):

1. What term should articles use for referring to "consuming excessive alcohol"? Can editors use the USPSTF guidelines to determine if alcohol consumption is excessive?

2. (using placeholder "alcohol misuse") Does not following a USPSTF guideline constitute alcohol misuse? Is it original research for us to say x person has alcohol misuse based on this logic if it's not stated in a reliable source?

3. Is it libelous to claim on a BLP article that a person has "alcohol misuse" if this is not directly stated by reliable sources? (I haven't looked at all the editors' changes, but I think this is relevant)

Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In a way quoting the DSM makes me *less* sure about the terminology - since the DSM will be prescriptive rather than descriptive of how researchers talk... but I agree let's chase this up somewhere else if we are going to dig into it.

On 2. I almost feel as if alcohol misuse has a distinct meaning with lower standards of evidence in biographies. If a lot of newspapers talk about alcohol misuse then perhaps we should use the "lay" meaning and not try to be specific. To be clearer we would need to have access to someone's medical records!

On 3. I suspect that if someone is shown to be repeatedly drinking to excess with negative results in reliable sources it would be reasonable to describe them as "misusing alcohol". On the other hand saying that someone has "alcohol use disorder" may well be libelous (depending on context) because it's more specific and it sort of implies that a doctor has agreed to this (and so, presumably, this information is more reliable). Talpedia (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I am tempted to add to this conversation, but I think we need to have the conversation elsewhere. I suspect that we need a conversation on stigmatizing language in general plus a separate one for alcohol specifically. Additionally, some of the disputed articles might need individual discussions.

Talpedia, I find 95 instances of FMSKy reverting TylerDurden's edits, so presumably, if we assume that 100% of those involved these terms, that means the "mass edits" is on the order of 100 edits. (They aren't all about alcohol; I don't see those terms in either this or this, both in the same article , and the word alcohol doesn't appear on the page. But, still, as a rough approximation, it's probably closer to 100 than to 10 or to 1,000.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per WhatamIdoing. Tyler has helped get articles to Good Article status. The changes Tyler has been making seem reasonable and the problem seems to surround nuanced disagreements between terminology e.g., alcoholism vs. alcohol use disorder, misuse vs. abuse. Such disagreements exist in the academic literature, professional bodies and treatment/recovery groups/organisations. This is a pure content dispute and this specific content dispute has arisen before on Misplaced Pages over the years. It is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is there an official process for suspending or otherwise giving up on this discussion, at least until the content question can be discussed at other/suitable pages? I'm sure that nobody here wants to issue a topic ban when there's any significant chance that subsequent RFCs would prove the disputed edits correct, and it would be preferable to have this editor free to join in the content discussions (if he's willing, which is uncertain). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would that be needed? We currently have over 10 people in favor of a topic ban and only one against. Case seems pretty clear to me --FMSky (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw here again the source that the terms are not synonyms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837467/ --FMSky (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I count 3 and half (the half being me). I think it's still unclear what the best term is and it may well vary from a case to case basis. But you are correct, a lot of people seem to be in favor of topic ban. There are clear advantages of resolving content disputes through source analysis rather than topic bans in terms of compliance, personal growth, procedural fairness, article quality, and drama reduction and editor retention. There are however time costs and some editors may simply ignore any evidence given. Talpedia (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky, let's look at your source. It's got WP:MEDDATE problems and it's about something else, but you like it, so let's look at it. Specifically, let's look at the relevant footnotes in the source you recommended. The footnote for "AUD" says "DSM-5 criteria. Not all exact criteria are listed. This new category integrates the 2 DSM-IV disorders “alcohol abuse” and “alcohol dependence” into a single disorder for DSM-5."

That means that – according to your own recommended source – Tyler was absolutely factually correct to say that "alcohol abuse" should (sometimes) be called "alcohol use disorder". Specifically, your own recommended source directly says that "alcohol abuse" is an older concept that has been replaced by "alcohol use disorder". In other words, this whole kerfuffle is based on you being concerned about someone replacing a much older (DSM-IV from 1994) term with a newer, broader category that – again, according to your own recommended source – includes (but is not limited to) the older, narrower diagnosis. Everybody who had a diagnosis of "alcohol abuse" or "alcohol dependence" in 1994 got a (single) new label called "alcohol use disorder" when DSM-V came out in 2013.

I realize that by the time people have spent a week here, it's hard to detach and look at disputes from fresh eyes. It's probably hardest for people who have been involved in the content dispute, instead of those who saw the dispute for the first time here. But I am looking at what @Lepricavark wrote ("nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong") and thinking that it might be a very bad idea to proceed from the POV that not only Tyler but also your own recommended source are wrong about the facts, and that only the non-medical editors above are right.

I think the better choice here is to get this content dispute off of ANI and hand the question over to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine. Once the content dispute has been sorted out, if it turns out that editors conclude that your recommended source is wrong, then it's easy enough to come back here and ask for a ban proposal to be revived. But if it turns out that your recommended source is correct, then I hope you can agree that it would be stupid for the English Misplaced Pages to ban an editor for the crime of "insisting that everyone else was wrong" if "everyone" (I think I could four editors in that category, none of them with much experience in medical subjects?) turned out to actually be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I saw this the other day and my heart sank. Looking again, I am encouraged that at least now there has been some sensible analysis and commentary. I too am concerned that some longstanding editors/admins perpetuate a myth that our articles are required to use the terminology of our sources (which to begin with, supposes our sources are even consistent on this, something WAID's analysis demonstrates they are not). It is a really dangerous myth that gets wheeled out typically to support reverting someone trying to improve word-choices on Misplaced Pages in a way an editor disagrees with. It is patently false to anyone who has paraphrased a source, or tried to make a difficult topic accessible to and engaging for general audience, or done any significant amount of copy editing and prose polishing.

AN/I is not the place to have a discussion about what terminology is preferable, interchangeable, deprecated, or which words to use in which cases but not others. Nor is it appropriate for editors to make a 100 reverts and then google some sources to try to justify why they were right and an actual subject expert was wrong. As Literaturegeek and Talpedia's comments indicate, it is not clear what terminology our articles should use, and I agree with others that there is need for a discussion on this topic in a venue where the incentive is to find how best to improve our articles, and not (for crying out loud, really) for folk to start suggesting site bans. -- Colin° 19:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it an accepted community or administrative standard to topic ban for a content dispute without even allowing for a content RfC or discussion at the relevant WP Med project? To me this topic ban proposal is premature and ill thought out. For all we know an RfC might side for TylerDurden (or against, or neutral).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Certainly there does not seem to be any community consensus that all/most of the edits made by Tyler were bad, and my impression so far is they were mass reverted solely on a "I don't like it / I didn't understand it" basis. Scrabbling around for sources to justify that mass revert looks, em, bad, especially when an offered source was so thoroughly dismantled by WAID as not saying what it was claimed to say. Even if an RFC or big discussion concluded in a way that justified some/most/all being reverted, I doesn't follow that Tyler should be topic banned (though that might be appropriate if he didn't accept the consensus and persisted afterwards). This looks much like garden variety situation where two editors disagreed on content and got hot headed about it, one of them took the other to AN/I to settle their content dispute through sanctions and mass reverts. The result, currently, is Tyler is retired, an editor who was clearly capable of producing quality medical articles.

I am really concerned that a topic ban was proposed to resolve a dispute that was far far from clear and straightforward, which quickly escalated in scope to "all of medicine" by people claiming "evidence" of wider problems (evidence that appears AFAICS to be entirely lacking wrt diffs, etc), and even a threat of a site ban. If I were an admin, I'd be recommending a few people take AN/I off their watchlists till the summer is over and they cool down. -- Colin° 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It appears the editor has publicly retired. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  It means nothing - people do that, and come back, all the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Not because of their choice of terms.... but instead because of their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This is not conducive to a collaborative environment. Yes- they "retired" but should they come back- they should do so with the intent to compromise and work with their fellow editors- not steamroll them and force their own opinions. Others have called them a great contributor- but a great editor does not force their opinion or obstinately insist everyone else is wrong and they are right. A great editor debates the merits, looks to see their fellow editor's sides, and tries to find a compromise that works for everyone. Until they can do that- they are prolific, not great. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας, single-purpose account on a revert spree

• Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, the single-purpose account account Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs), which began editing one week ago, began making non-content edits to stable articles and initiating discussions on a couple others seeking input for some changes. The user has changed course in past hours. After naming me "officially ignored", the user made multiple reverts at Doiran Lake, Geography of North Macedonia, and Western Macedonia. The latter article is not one which this user had edited previously, so it seems the user may be beginning to target my edits in general. Also regarding that edit, I was simply completing a reversion of the page to a stable version. In edit summaries, the user has told me twice to "find another hobby". I have warned the user twice on the user's talk page ( ), but was reverted each time. The user then copy-pasted the exact wording of my warnings to my own talkpage.

WP:MOSMAC is the relevant policy in this area. The user is seeking to change stable articles to include the "North Macedonian" adjectival form. In some instances the user sought input on talkpages, while in others the user just made the edits. On Geography of North Macedonia, for instance, I accepted most of the changes in good faith but applied a neutral wording adjustment. Now, it seems the user has devolved into revert warring, with which I won't engage.

Revert diffs:

• Doiran Lake
• Doiran Lake
• Western Macedonia
• Geography of North Macedonia
• Geography of North Macedonia

Thanks. --Local hero 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Local hero If someone looks at the history of your edits will notice that you always target all users who implement WP:MOSMAC. Here you try to pretend that you protect stable versions of wikipedia but you don't say the truth which is written on the talk pages Talk:Demographics_of_North_Macedonia and Talk:Doiran_Lake. Every sentence you write is against the decisions of this community, your only goal is to avoid using North Macedonian. If you look at all my edits, they don't add North Macedonian, they improve the text that nobody tried to improve. You are the one who reverted only those edits that add North Macedonian although I have already explained you the reason in Talk:Doiran_Lake. Everybody can read the truth there. You explicitly stated that you try to avoid using North Macedonian, which is against the decisions of our community. It's clear that the decisions of our community are not implemented after 3 years because of some people like you who block any change that adds the new name of the country. If this is the goal of wikipedia, then I want to know that by the other users here. Your personal goal is very clear to everyone.

WP:MOSMAC clearly states:

However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

Moreover, WP:MOSMAC says: In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form' where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

I showed you those sentences multiple times under Talk:Doiran_Lake, and you always run out of arguments and you re-wrote the sentence in any possible way with one goal, TO AVOID NORTH MACEDONIAN, and you explicitly admitted, although WP:MOSMAC says we should use the full from North Macedonian in cases of ambiguity. WP:MOSMAC doesn't say that we should rewrite the sentence in any possible way to avoid using North Macedonian which is your own interpretation.

Local hero everybody here knows the truth. Jingiby is another victim of your special way of acting about the same issue Talk:Geography_of_North_Macedonia.

Do you feel like the owner of those pages? You always talk about consensus, but that's why we have WP:MOSMAC, and you constantly ignore it. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας

@Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας: As an aside, your signature doesn't link to your user page, talk page or contributions. For the sake of easy communication, could I politely ask you to add such a link to your custom signature? Zudo 08:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

They were informed but just deleted the statement without changing the signature. They’ve been informed again on their talk page by a third user. So hopefully they change it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Zudo, Canterbury Tail I am really sorry for that. I am new here and didn't understand your message. Hopefully, my signature is correct now. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(_ak)

The editor Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs) has already been alerted to the ARBEE sanctions but has removed the notice. I hope that we don't see an outbreak of edit warring at Geography of North Macedonia. It raises concerns when a brand new editor starts modifying terms about nationality that have been carefully negotiated in the past. Since the editor already knows about WP:MOSMAC I hope they are willing to say if they have had a previous Misplaced Pages account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I had one in the Greek wikipedia a few years ago, but I am active the last five years without an account in the english wikipedia. Indeed I have carefully studied WP:MOSMAC, and it's really sad that is completely ignored from editors.

EdJohnston Please check all my edits and you will see that they are in line with WP:MOSMAC. The edit war with Local hero was caused because s/he explicitly admitted that s/he doesn't want to implement the decisions of WP:MOSMAC as you can confirm https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Doiran_Lake&diff=1102194512&oldid=1102192699.

For example, in the case of Doiran Lake, the sentence uses Macedonian to refer to a side of the lake, but every side of the lake is Macedonian, because the lake lies in Macedonia (region), and the term Macedonian is used with a different meaning (than that of North Macedonian) in two other places of the same page. So I tried to explain to Local hero in any possible way that the sentence is completely ambiguous, and the adjective North Macedonian is suitable to resolve the ambiguity according to WP:MOSMAC that clearly handles this case with the following:

In all other contexts, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may be used on Misplaced Pages in reference to the country (e.g. a North Macedonian company, or the Macedonian economy). In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

The answer of Local hero was that s/he added "Macedonian (western)" to solve the ambiguity, since he tried to avoid using "North Macedonian" which is the decision reported in WP:MOSMAC.

Everything is very clear here. Local hero explicitly states that s/he doesn't care about the decisions of this community and ignores WP:MOSMAC. How do we handle such a behaviour? If we need the permission of Local hero for every single change on a page that is clearly handled my WP:MOSMAC, my question is why do we have WP:MOSMAC? Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(_ak)

Do you equally oppose edits that remove all mentions "Macedonian" for no good reason, such as this one? You claim to be such a staunch defender of MOSMAC so I presume you would. Strange that this single-purpose account began editing around the same time as you and exclusively focuses on erasing "Macedonian" where it's perfectly fine or implementing "North Macedonian" where it isn't needed. --Local hero 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I will equally treat any page that violates WP:MOSMAC. All my edits confirm that and all the discussions between the two of us are supported by arguments. How does the edit you are worried about violates WP:MOSMAC? I don't see North Macedonian used anywhere on this page, and I see real improvements made by the user. It would be great if you can show me at least one edit of yourself the last three years that adds "North Macedonian" in any wikipedia page to implement WP:MOSMAC. It would be great to know, in your opinion, in which cases "North Macedonian" should be clearly added based on WP:MOSMAC. I want to have some concrete examples. Please. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(_ak) — Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The edit I pointed out needlessly eliminates "Macedonian", while you accuse me of needlessly avoiding "North Macedonian". Yet, you only see it as an issue when "North Macedonian" is avoided but not when "Macedonian" is avoided. I do not use "North Macedonian", as MOSMAC generally prefers "Macedonian" or other formulations. In cases of ambiguity, I use neutral formulations. --Local hero 14:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from user:CABF45

Reported user is actively disrupting the Ice cream article trying to push Chinese contribution to the history of that food. They refuse to achieve consensus on the talk.

• Reported user adds content with unreliable sources
• reported user is reverted for copy vio by another user
• Reported user begins with an aggressive tone a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted them and threatened to add back the content while being said that this content is not improving the article .
• Other users said that the content added by the reported user is not relevant for the article
• Reported user seems unable to find out if a source has expertise for a topic or not and refuses to listen when other users try to inform them about that (several times) , , , ,
• Reported user added again some content while claiming that the source for their edit is a food historian, i reverted them with an explanation on why their source isn't reliable and left a message on the talk about that and finally warned the user, their reaction was to ignore WP:BRD and to revert my edit and post two warnings on my talk , .

All in all, when i look at CABF45's contributions, i don't see any will of improving the article and, more generally, the project.---Wikaviani 13:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Since when is the BBC News an "unreliable source"? After clarifying that this was the children site of BBC News I didn't add back the content.
• I was accused of copyright violation. Please check the link and the edit summary and make up your mind whether it was warranted or not. Also reverting editor calls me a halfwit while trying to discuss. I "threatened to add back the content" after further tweaking it which is what we do when accused with CopyVio.
• I added ABC-CLIO and Royal Society of Chemistry sources, which weren't good enough, because they were not so-called "food historians".
• Now I'm adding a historian (published by John Wiley & Sons) who wrote seventeen(!) books on history, cuisine and the French regional culture, but he reverts it again, because Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat is still not food historian enough.
• Several reliable and relevant references claim a Chinese origin of ice cream, but User:Wikaviani only accepts the Iranian origin of it.
• Do we really want to be in disagreement with Encyclopædia Britannica as they too seem to favor the Chinese origin of ice cream.
• However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative.

CABF45 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Britannica does not claim a "Chinese origin" of ice cream, it only says that iced desserts were introduced to Europe from the east. Besides, it has been said unreliable as a source by an admin, Doug Weller. Last but not least, as explained to you many times, Misplaced Pages works with consensus and i don't see any for your edits.---Wikaviani 13:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Britannica says:

Iced desserts were introduced into Europe from the East. Marco Polo brought back descriptions of fruit ices from his travels in China.

That's fair enough for me: Would you keep it or would you disruptively remove it?

When did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable? CABF45 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case, i leave it to the admins. Best.~~ ---Wikaviani 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to answer to your above comments, firstly, "when did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable ?", here.

"However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative." odd how you seem to ignore the other source written by a food historian, Gil Marks and also this edit of mines where i say that i don't support any sharp claim like X or Y invented ice cream ... I usually assume good faith, but i confess that in your case, it doesn't seem obvious to me.---Wikaviani 00:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

So Doug Weller treated Britannica as an unreliable source in 2017. First, how should I know that? Second, he still thinks that way and all of Misplaced Pages should throw out Britannica from now on?

(On the Gil Marks source see more below.) CABF45 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Many articles from Britannica are written by the editors of Britannica (like the one you cited by the way), this makes that encyclopedia unreliable, some articles are written by expert sources, they are generally considered reliable, but this is not our point here, this report is about your disruptive editing and inability to find out if a source is reliable or not along with POV pushing and refusal to listen what other editors tell you. Just one example, i said i disagree with your last edit at Ice cream and so did Spudlace below, if you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would have self reverted and tried to achieve consensus on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I engaged in discussion on the talk page throughout the process even if you're trying to give the impression that I didn't.

You only accept sources that support the Iranian origin of ice cream. Remember when Spudlace tried to remove the history section and export it into frozen desserts, you simply reverted him (without seeking concensus). CABF45 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted Spudlace and i stand for that by WP:ONUS, the onus is on the editor who makes new edits to achieve consensus (in other words, Spudlace) and i did so because they did a terrible job, leaving the section without historical informations and with many cites errors, i told them that and i feel like they got me, but this report is not about Spudlace, it's about you.---Wikaviani 02:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And another editor also had problems with the history section, there's still Template:Self-contradictory placed on the history section for a reason. So "consensus" seems more and more like the will of User:Wikaviani. CABF45 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The template has nothing to do with my edits or Spudlace's edits, Andy explained the reason for it on the article's talk page, your comment sounds like a nonsense. Also, that editor had a clash with you and your edits, you seem to ignore that, once more.---Wikaviani 03:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with Andy on the usage of the Template:Self-contradictory at the history section even if we had an unrelated "clash". I don't know what you consider nonsense, just read Andy's explanation of why he thinks much of the history section should be redone.

Again: the present "consensus" version means the will of User:Wikaviani, neither AndytheGrump nor Spudlace wanted to keep it as it is. CABF45 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

When User:Wikaviani is warned (and again) that the Gil Marks source he pushes is not exactly relevant, he simply ignores it and forces it into the article anyway.
He also tries to create above the impression that I didn't listen to the discussion and just went on editing. I abandoned several above mentioned references even when I considered them reliable and relevant.
User:Spudlace effectively begged User:Wikaviani to stop guarding this article. CABF45 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've had disagreements with User:Wikaviani on this article but not pertaining to this new dispute. I did mention on the talk page that I think some of these sources pass reliability, but I don't support inclusion of CABF45's contested edit, as it is currently written. CABF45 has chosen to ignore my input, which I don't take personally. From what I can see, the content about China is still in article. So far, I think all the editors are sincere by trying to improve the article. Spudlace (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment : at the end of the day, Spudlace recognised the relevance of the source and my edits .---Wikaviani 14:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Spudlace and Wikaviani, as to the solution of the content dispute, could you live with this proposal per WP:Balance:

Multiple sources claim the ice cream is of Chinese origin, while multiple other references suggest an Iranian origin.

Adding references respectively, and done. CABF45 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, because ice cream is not either Chinese or Iranian, it's the result of a long and multicultural process that is quite well explained in the article (at least, before your last edit). This noticeboard is not the article's talk page, thus, not the relevant place for this discussion.---Wikaviani 02:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that for you "this long and multicultural process" always starts with Iran even when multiple reliable sources claim it started in China. That's why I cited WP:Balance. CABF45 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the problem is that so far, not a single editor has agreed with any of your edits at Ice cream, yet you keep pushing your POV with unreliable sources, refuse to listen to what other editors say, ignore Misplaced Pages guidelines even when other editors remind you about that. I rest my case. Goodnight.---Wikaviani 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I used more reliable sources than the ones you're pushing. Spudlace agreed with using the ABC-CLIO source, it was you who went against concensus, but I didn't want an edit war.

I would agree with Spudlace's proposal to completely remove most of the history section, and only deal with the modern history of ice cream, I just didn't want to start an edit war with you.

I also perfectly understand why Andy placed the Template:Self-contradictory on the history section, it was you who wanted to remove that template. CABF45 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Closing admin: Please read Talk:Ice_cream carefully as some of the diffs provided by User:Wikaviani are quite misleading. Thank you. CABF45 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Since my brief involvement in this nonsense has been brought up here, I might as well express an opinion on the problems with this article. And start by repeating what I wrote earlier on my talk page: ...I don't think that we should necessarily hold one contributor solely responsible for the mess in the ice cream article history section. Sadly, content concerning the history of food tends to attract all sorts of POV-pushers (often motivated by nationalism), and to be based around questionable sources written more for entertainment than accuracy... It seems to me that contributors to the article are working under a false premise: that it is possible to state who 'invented ice cream' in any definitive manner. One can certainly find sources that make such definitive claims, but them doing so does little to inspire confidence in their validity as sources. When does 'frozen dessert' (which presumably dates back to when some enterprising, or possibly lost, hominid first gathered fruit in frozen regions) become 'ice cream'? And even if there was a single agreed definition of exactly what constitutes ice cream (I've not seen one), how likely is it that such an event would be recorded for posterity? The most that credible historians can say about the subject is that frozen desserts of one form or another were reported in place X or Y at date Z. And maybe suggest that some such descriptions seem to match what would now resemble 'ice cream'. That isn't an assertion that said dessert was 'invented' anywhere in particular, merely that it was described. Misplaced Pages contributors shouldn't engage themselves in trying to provide definitive answers to 'historical questions' that actual historians should know better than to try to answer. Trying to do so so is not only a disservice to readers, but a fool's errand, since it inevitably results in the sort of ongoing disagreements we see here, usually only 'resolved' by seeing who can make the most stubborn pig-headed and repetitive arguments, and drive anyone else away from the debate. If 'winning' that way is what matters, frankly Misplaced Pages could do better without such contributors. And said contributors might do well to ask themselves whether they could find better things to do with their lives... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a mature comment, my 2 cents...

I offered a compromise per WP:Balance, I also offered the removal of the "ancient history of ice cream" like Spudlace did earlier.

User:Wikaviani rejected both of those solutions in the name of the Iranian origin narrative... CABF45 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons above and they have nothing to do with "the Iranian origin narrative" ... ---Wikaviani 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why don't you support the compromise?

The Chinese origin is supported by Encyclopædia Britannica, an ABC-CLIO, a Royal Society of Chemistry and a John Wiley & Sons reference.

The Iranian origin is supported by an RW Press source and Gil Marks.

(Yes, I know, Gil Marks is a "food historian", who mostly wrote cookbooks. However, Christopher Cumo (ABC-CLIO) is a historian of agriculture, and Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat did write A History of Food, which John Wiley & Sons decided to publish. That's good enough for me. I also think that natural sciences - including chemistry - have been crucial in the development of the ice cream, so I would also keep the Royal Society of Chemistry source.)

We could also remove the ancient history section and start with the discovery of the endothermic effect as AndytheGrump suggested. CABF45 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

All this has been discussed already and the current version of the article is the result of a consensus, your insistance to bring back the same tired unreliable sources for this topic is for the least disruptive. @Admins : you can close this without action, at your discretion. I am not interested to discuss this matter with a user who fails to get the point.---Wikaviani 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The "consensus" is you agreeing with User:Spudlace. (For now. As pointed out above, Spudlace had very different plans for this article originally.) User:AndytheGrump is also in disagreement with your "consensus", just read his take above.

So we are throwing out Encyclopædia Britannica, an ABC-CLIO, a Royal Society of Chemistry and a John Wiley & Sons reference, while we are keeping RW Press and Gil Marks.

I agree: Admins, please close this without action, this has been a content dispute masquerading as an ANI Report. CABF45 (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This report has never been about a content dispute, it's about an editor (you) repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content.---Wikaviani 00:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I never added unsourced content, and it was you who decided what was properly sourced and what not. WP:OWN. CABF45 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

said the guy who has been reverted by all the other involved editors ...---Wikaviani 20:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Trade is falsely accusing me for an LTA and User:Slywriter is requesting rather unnecessary full create protection

• Trade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As the title suggests, the first user was falsely accusing me of a sockpuppet of User:LiliaMiller2002 and the latter one was overzealously requesting salting of Draft:Bobik Platz, which is to me unnecessary. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for the IP to be starting this thread, but for some context, see the first section at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you're the same as User:180.252.25.15. This thread is just forum shopping / trolling, since it is being delete reviewed, and there is fair evidence this is indeed a hoax. In fact, this kinda makes you look like an LTA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address 36.74.40.153 is flagging up for me as a proxy. Are you using a proxy? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• • You beat me to it. I just scanned and found it is a proxy. I didn't see that for the 180 address, which was down. That may explain why the geo is different than the LiliaMiller2002 socks (spain). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    The IP 36.74.42.66 (the OP at DRV) is also flagging as a proxy. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    I don't use proxies, therefore it is a false-positive but it doesn't excuse that I created two draft pages, which was deleted under G3 criterion and the latter one has additional G5, which indicates the page was created by a banned user. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Both IPs claim same junk link as a reference 180:Special:Diff/1099375119 vs current ip: Special:Diff/1102374706. Other similarities in first post to DR and TEA. Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  The very first edit this IP makes is to defend being a sock? WP:BOOMERANG incoming. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Whenever we are tired of wasting our time, please delete and salt Draft:SM_Billiards which uses the same non-existent IGN links and archive.org confirms never existed as anything other than 404. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it doesn't excuse the fact that all three pages only belongs to Fanon Wiki. Oh well, sorry for being WP:POINTy but at least hope that it serves as a lesson for not misrepresenting fanon pages as a real one, even if the page is not originated from main fanon wiki. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• This needs a range block for proxy, and that is getting a little over my head. The 180 needs to be monitored or blocked, it was just completely down after an intensive no ping scan, but it is obviously the same person, same geolocation, same edits. May need a range block as well. Very likely, the person is in spain, and bouncing through here, ie: LiliaMiller2002 sock. Will get that draft in a sec. EDIT: RickinB was showing off and beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Took care of that draft for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Can someone block those ranges please? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Can we please cut this troll off already? They still going including my talk page. Slywriter (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • • Yes please. The three ranges. I would attempt, but honestly, my IT skills are a bit rusty and I just don't want to screw it up. Perhaps checkuser can find us someone more competent with IP ranges. They are all related, and we need the IT skills more than connecting dots, which are already connected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
      • My range block-fu skills are not strong, otherwise I would. I'd love someone to explain it easily though so I could help in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

        From a purely technical perspective 36.74.40.0/21 and 180.252.16.0/20 look to be the ranges to consider. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

        • Figuring out netmasks in your head (except for the easy /8 /16 /24 corresponding to individual numbers in ipv4) never gets intuitive. Fortunately, you don't have to! WP:RANGE links to handy tools to do it for you. Now including {{rangecalc}}, which I hadn't seen before and which seems especially nifty. —Cryptic 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

      @Dennis Brown It's not clear what you want CU to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) @Dennis Brown and RoySmith: Probably to check if @Trade's accusations of me for being a sockpuppet/LTA of User:LiliaMiller2002 is false. 36.74.42.211 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a heads up that while y'all are yakking about range blocks, I've blocked Special:contributions/36.74.40.153 for 48 hours. Their latest crap was to report Slywriter to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please make him leave my talk page alone in this nonsense @Bbb23:--Trade (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've blocked 36.74.40.153 and 36.74.42.211 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trade: Your revert on my warnings are vandalism because I told you that I'm not a sock of User:LiliaMiller2002. 36.74.42.211 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor is allowed by Wiki policyguidelines to remove comments from their own talk pages, they are under no circumstances required to keep your warning public on their talk page, and in fact, you should not be restoring removed talk page comments FrederalBacon (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree with FrederalBacon that Wiki guidelines allows Editors to remove comments from their own talkpages, even through archiving is preferred. Chip3004 (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, are we gonna ignore the fact this is clearly an IP evading a block here? "I'm not a sock" is the same accusation against the original IP, which is now blocked. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

97.116. IPs

There has been persistent vandalism since 2018 from the Twin Cities IP range 97.116.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which sadly has a bit of collateral. The edits vandalize song track lengths, altering them to arbitrary lengths which typically contradict all verifiable primary sources. User also occasionally edits animation articles, and never communicates when warned on their talk page. I estimate there to be at least 50 IPs I have witnessed over time which appear to be connected to this vandal. Their most recent IP is 97.116.184.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whih has been warned 3 times for vandalism, with their third warning being ignored and them again vandalizing the same article within ten minutes of first being reverted and given a final warning. Οἶδα (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And a new one at 97.116.185.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Οἶδα (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Yae4, brought by 84.250.14.116 (talk)

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did not want to bring up User:Yae4 to ANI here because I have been an involved editor and User:Yae4 assumes good faith in many things for the best of a well referenced encyclopedia, but occasionally their chronic behaviors, requests for administrative actions and maintenance tagging upsets and frustrates many (involved) editors. What finally prompted me to start this ANI case was an uninvolved editor 1's comment about User:Yae4's behaviors, about an article I have never edited. Below is an excerpt.

1. Special:Diff/1102095113/1102120554

Editor 1, addressing User:Yae4: Your behaviour is contrary to assume good faith and I consider it direct attack against editors. ​

2. Special:Diff/1095874907/1096398509

IP editor 2, suspected undisclosed connections (COI) and IP sock of a stale Misplaced Pages account I can't disclose due to WP:OUTING. Not the most civil example of discussion in a dispute, but lays out problematic issues with User:Yae4's behaviors.

3. Special:Diff/975693856

Editor 3, but stale (August 2020). You're repeatedly making unsupported changes based on your incorrect interpretations and assumptions. You keep accusing others of doing what you are doing which is writing content not matching the sources. ​

4. Special:Diff/1096634558

Editor 4: I have zero intentions on "causing confusion" and suddenly jumping to such a conclusion doesn't really appear to be you trying to WP:AGF and assume I'm somehow trying to cause issues. It would be nice if you could come at me with a less demeaning tone. ​

5. Special:Diff/1101770944

IP editor 5: Disputed, though I agree as an involved editor with this comment and the consensus exists. What on Earth? No, interpretations of statements that may or may not have been made by the project lead are not "basic facts" in the vein layed out by WP:PRIMARY. Besides, I thought the broad consensus of this talk page, and particularly the "open source" label discussion, has been that you do not have WP:NPOV on this point.

6. Special:Diff/1102580184

IP editor 5 commenting on User:Yae4 derailing discussions: I find it strange you're so holed up on this point. This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

7. Special:Diff/1101089878, Special:Diff/1101359618/1101443894

Editor 6 (SPA), while not the most civil, accuses of bias, WP:NPOV and hints WP:CIR.

8. Special:Diff/1094629670

IP editor 7: Dispute, but summarizing statements and sources given by User:Yae4: That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said.

Several administrative cases have been raised by User:Yae4 they've been in dispute with, but none with administrative action taken against the accused (the editors User:Yae4 has been in dispute with). These discussions also involve frustrated editors (some by nature), and greatly waste editors' (and administrators') time and attention away from improving articles.

• 9. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive415#User:Pitchcurve reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )
• 10. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive456#User:84.250.14.116 reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )
• 11. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editor 84.250.14.116 behavior
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editors EndariV and "Jann ruhe" behavior, and Yae4
• 12. Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/06#GrapheneOS, in response to (most likely) IP editor 7's edits. Result: User:Yae4 partially blocked for 1 week for edit-warring, no page protection increase.
• 13. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Resonantia/Archive
• 14. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Strcat/Archive

I'm quite certain User:Yae4 is well versed and aware of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and should have been instructed several times how to behave, either on article talk namespaces or on their user talk page directly. I don't know what the most appropriate corrective action could be taken here to address User:Yae4 behavior.

As a side-mention, User:Yae4 has been previously banned from climate change topics in 2020, due to arbitration enforcement.

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265#Yae4

Reasons for arbitration included, invalid tags, Addition of synthesis, disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views which I concern is still happening to-date in other article(s) (which I've been involved in). The latest example of the "talk page activism" may be found at Talk:GrapheneOS, focusing their talk page discussions and views on "not to use sources" in several unrelated discussions, despite editors disagreeing with the view (although I think some of his points warrant some due weight, but better sourcing), although there are also several good examples of editing, discussion and criticism from User:Yae4.

Please keep comments on-topic and civil here. If you have a complaint about my behavior, please discuss it in a new section.

Pinging @Yae4 for awareness of ANI, because they have requested me to not personally leave messages or {{subst:AN-notice}} on their talk page. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 response

This complaint is because I politely informed

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

they appeared to be routinely violating WP:3RR at GrapheneOS. They not only made a joke of it, but responded by bringing us here, again; falsely accusing me of "adding invalid information"., and only lastly discussing it at Talk:GrapheneOS where content discussion belongs. If you wish, I can add a list of sockpuppets blocked because I brought them to attention, or a list "difficulties" involved with 84.250.14.116 and their many claimed other IPs, but it seems like a waste of time. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Usually I would completely WP:AGF and not even check your Diffs and summaries, but something smelled fishy by "IP editor 7", so I'm making an exception. "IP editor 7" is you, 84.250.14.116. That's misleading to call a "7th editor". If you don't mind, I'll add some notes and comments inline. Reminder: I have been editing GrapheneOS since before published, helped it get published and in WP:DYK. I miss the days of cooperative collaboration and polite disagreemnts with Newslinger. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

1. GreatDer. I thank them for their less promotional approach, but on balance, they do seem to ignore obvious rules, most recently on Murena disambiguation where they wish to include "Murena" phones before there is an article. Please read the full exchange; this summary is very one-sided. As I responded there, Special:Diff/1102136403 "Great, you personal attack then you mention of WP:AGF. See WP:CYCLE. It is unfortunate the leaders of /e/ and associated shell companies have abused Misplaced Pages for many years: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea/Archive and continue by recruiting." -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

2. 142.126.170.15: Another IP and likely sock, from Toronto, home of GrapheneOS. False accusations with zero basis should carry zero weight. Maybe their behavior deserves the sanctions, but Admins did not see it, or explain why not. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

3. Pitchcurve: example of editors who "know" the truth for sure, but don't bring sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

4. EndariV (see their comments below). I warned them for promotional edits and unhelpfully sticking Talk comments in a random place. They responded badly. Note: in Special:Diff/1099615786, you warned them for "Battlegrounding" changed to "Edit warring". -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

5. 98.97.32.199, and they said also 71.212.97.11 and 75.172.38.252, over short times, leading to confusion as they acknowledged at their Talk. I warned about WP:COI. They responded badly. You said to them: I too was about to ask if you have undisclosed connections to GrapheneOS (you seem to have a lot of knowledge from involvement or a device with GrapheneOS installed for expressing statements and deeper knowledge of the subject on the talk page" -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

6. Multiple IP user again: You again selectively quote to make it look worse. They also thanked me: "Thanks for catching the republishers, I've removed those sources."

6. There is an open, unresolved content dispute regarding what primary-source statements will be included, from GrapheneOS website, from GrapheneOS and Micay GitHub posts, and for completeness but little discussed, from GrapheneOS and Micay Twitter, with due respect to WP:RSPTWITTER requirements. GrapheneOS promoters want to include all the one-sided claims of excellence, but ignore all the difficulties with other projects, and statements that other projects are not welcome to use GrapheneOS sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

7. Again, false accusations with zero basis from WP:COI SPAs should carry zero weight. Regarding WP:CIR: With all due respect, I've had a feeling English is not your first language, and is a potential source of our misunderstandings. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

8. "7" 84.250.14.116 Were you trying to make this look like an additional, independent complaint? This is also, and a good, typical example of how you deal with content discussions - vaguely, leaving difficulty understanding what you really favor. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

9. 2020 (Stale) -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

10. As discussed above, 84.250.14.116 continues reverting and otherwise undoing other editors with little restraint. Warning them was the immediate precursor to them coming here. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

11. Really one recent Incident. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

12. EndariV comment below also supports page protection for GrapheneOS (though not sure they understand what it means). -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

13. Two sockpuppets, Anonymous526 and Anonymous874 were blocked; one was unblocked after promising to stop puppeting. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

14. 2020 (Stale), but also had admission of WP:COI by Anupritaisno1: Special:Diff/975735744, and Strcat (Micay alias) "abandoned" that account, noted by Admin. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

15. I try to learn from the bad experiences and improve my sourcing. Yes, GrapheneOS had some poor sources, and I have accepted blame and tried to correct the mistakes. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

84.250.14.116

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

• This IP became, in essence, a very active WP:SPA at GrapheneOS around the time Micay/GrapheneOS tweeted about Misplaced Pages.

• Looking at their global activities, they also edited several GrapheneOS wikidata properties, including their other communication channels - IRC and Matrix. On the one hand, it could be random coincidence, and a suddenly very interested editor digging into details. On the other hand, it is consistent with responding to "a call" recruiting editors to GrapheneOS. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Canvassing? I am not a wiki-lawyer, but 84.250.14.116's several bcc's in this complaint look like WP:INAPPNOTE Inappropriate Canvassing - partisan, and not very transparent. I saw no other bcc's in this Noticeboard page; I did not search archives.

• Recent Admin interaction at User_talk:84.250.14.116 you be the judge: Special:Diff/1099480315/1101250029. Sorry in advance to Bbb23 for this transparent ping.

• Editing styles: Their approach of many, many sequential edits to GrapheneOS may be using a loophole around WP:3RR, as other editors like me wait until they are finished to avoid edit conflicts. I understand my style of fewer, bigger (when needed) edits, causes some angst for some other editors.

-- Yae4 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Statements

EndariV

I've moved on from attempting to edit GrapheneOS well over two weeks ago purely because Yae4's behavior is so mentally tiring and there needs to be some admin intervention here.

If Yae4 is not going to get any restrictions, GrapheneOS needs to be semi-protected at minimum because their behavior has driven away plenty of other editors and they have an awfully obvious non-neutral POV including some blatantly obvious offenses such as Special:Diff/1102122284 (I don't even know what this has to do with the article and seems extremely cherrypicked just to make people scared of GrapheneOS, but I'm not wasting my energy on Yae4's draining behavior) with very twisted and editorialized wording which only paints the article a bad image to newcomers. And Yae4 is very revert-happy on neutral, informative things about the topic of GrapheneOS which even another IP editor pointed out in Special:Diff/1102574120 which was an absurd amount of content removed for no valid reason even when much effort was put in at Talk:GrapheneOS for a lot of that content. (P.S. I'm only replying here because Misplaced Pages notified me of a ping here...) EndariV (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 84.250.14.116 also supports removing most of the material, as we were trying to minimize primary sources and summarize secondary sources, not cherry-pick selected info' from sources. As said above, sometimes they are vague on what they support, so yes, you are correct, it does waste a lot of energy. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Greatder

Yae4 is a tough editor to deal with. I have interacted with the person in GrapheneOS, Murena, /e/ Operating System page, Tor (network)(), Tor Phone, you can see the history and talk page for all the interactions. For example on Tor Phone he reverted third opinion edit by me and then prolonged the article with unrelated info. Similar problem happened in the Tor network / Tor Project article.(I had edit warred so when I was threatened with a block I stopped editing). On Murena it is clear that the term exists and other users support my redirect saying it may become notable in future but Yae4 just keeps removing it. Yae4 reminds me of Fram net has net positive edit, but net negative community contribution. Greatder (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Updated 10 August.

• I was just informed of this complaint (link), which I have not read in full (no time, sorry). But I will say this: as the admin who had p-blocked Yae4 for violating 3RR recently on the page/s in question, I've experienced similar WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT from them at that time. They may well be right on the content (I have no idea), but irrespectively of that, I found them to have been exhausting to deal with, so that was it for me (diff). Though, wtf is Yae4 reminds me of Fram net positive edit, net negative community contribution about, Greatder? El_C 17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: You gave me 7 days block for a first block, which seemed heavy handed, after only cursory review. (aside from "climate change", which is a whole special topic of its own) -- Yae4 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yae4, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall that being something you raised in that AN3 report (link). But had you asked me about that then, I would have told you that this block duration was neither heavy handed nor exceptional in any way. Rather, that for first 3RR vio blocks, it's standard practice to issue a one week p-block, which leaves the user ample time to engage the talk page (and before p-block existed, it was 24 hours site-wide). Further, just like in that report, you again mention climate change, and just like in that report, my answer remains the same: that I neither remember what that was about, nor do I see how it's germane to any of this (special topic though it may be). El_C 03:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

On Fram, basically Yae is hard deal with between enormous amount of reverted edits(I acknowledge lot of it is CoI, IP edits. But lots of legitimate edits are reverted by them too.) and constant bludgeon and idht. Greatder (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? What a weird non-answer, Greatder. Are we expected to somehow guess whatever grievances you have against Fram (←ping this time) so as to warrant you mentioning him here? I've no idea why you've decided, seemingly randomly, to cast aspersions upon him, but I don't like it, and I think it reflects poorly on you. El_C 06:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@El C I only knew about Fram from news articles. I know that people were upset about his behaviour even though he contributed edits that helped make articles better. Yae4 may have upgraded a lot of articles, but I take issue with the editors behaviour and thus the mension nothing special about fram. Greatder (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Greatder, well, he is a real person, so, in general, it's best to not to mention something, or someone, whom you obviously lack the competence to draw comparisons from. The WP:FRAM saga has zero to do with any of this, even less so than Yae4's climate change or whatever. Also, I presume that, like myself, English isn't your native tongue, but you need to better proofread your comments as they are rather challenging to read through (i.e. broken English) and this is the English Misplaced Pages. El_C 16:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I suggested fram has anything to do with this.(he doesn't) I have striken that part. Greatder (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• GreatDer edits of my comments: I object because it reduced understanding IMO. There should have been no confusion given the usual talk page indentation, but I planned to highlight my inline comments and copy-paste 84.250.14.116 signatures for EEng or when/if an Admin asked, and I had time. In future, I suggest following the spirit of WP:TPO and "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". EEng is not an Admin, AFAIK.Special:UserRights/EEng I am now aware of WP:INTERPOLATE, but I saw no objection by 84.250.14.116. That said, thanks for at least making the effort to number the comments. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It was a pain to relist, but if you can put the sign in the proper places you can relist.(Please don't revert not again) Greatder (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Canvassing too?: Do you think admins are not "watching" this page? WP:INAPPNOTE but kudos for at least being more transparent. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, cause only one admin came and it was one of 3 I pinged :) I pinged people who have interacted with you of course. Greatder (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

84.250.14.116 (OP)

I agree with some sentiments about bludgeoning and WP:IDHT raised by others (El C). But reading the counter-arguments from User:Yae4 on this noticeboard is also tiresome and a timewaste for me to argue back. I will not make a proposal for resolution myself, but if desired, I'll remind the Misplaced Pages community (non-administrators included) can propose administrative resolutions by consensus. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Who's on first?

Yae4, don't interlard your responses within others' posts, because it makes it impossible to tell who's saying what. Undo what you did and respond below the original post. EEng 00:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Or not. EEng 15:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going to relist it with numbers. Greatder (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@EEng How does it look? Greatder (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy

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

This incident involves User:NewsAndEventsGuy ("NAE" for short). I've just pinged NAE, and will also provide the required notification at his talk page (NAE has asked that I not visit his user talk page but I subsequently asked the same of him which he then disregarded so I have no problem giving him the notice now). This complaint is about NAE's behavior today at 2021 United States Capitol attack. That article is controversial of course, and NAE has gone way over the line.

The article talk page gives lots of warnings, including this one: "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article." NAE is aware and familiar with those discretionary sanctions, as he has templated both himself and me too on this subject. The article talk page section corresponding to this complaint is archived here, and includes extensive explanations by me.

• 22:12 on 6 Aug, NAE inserts new content into the lead: "In his hour-long speechm Trump said 'fight' 23 times and 'peacefully' just once."

• 22:59 on 6 Aug, new content reverted by me with edit summary "Removing original research, see WP:OR, also see talk page as to why this original research is extremely misleading".

• 23:24 on 6 Aug, new content jammed back into the lead by NAE, with misleading edit summary.

• 00:22 & 00:25, I attempted in-text attribution while making clear I opposed the whole sentence in the lead.

• 00:45 on 7 Aug, NAE deletes in-text attribution (while omitting deletion from edit summary).

The new content that was jammed back in remains in (as of the time of this ANI request). Contrary to the discretionary sanctions, he insists on putting his OR into the lead in wikivoice without consensus, jamming it back in after reversion, also insisting his number ("22") is more correct than the number ("20") asserted by the member of Congress who is the only cited source who has said anything about this subject. But there's much more aside from the above article edits....

• 00:34 on 7 Aug, NAE thinks it proper to use that article's talk page as a soapbox and forum, to discuss "your block-log, and prior history as user:Ferrylodge, and partial outting to the NYT as being a lawyer...." NAE also falsely states "You have not tried to revert...." Of course, I had reverted at 22:59 on 6 Aug. (only to have my revert reverted by NAE).

• 00:47 on 7 Aug, NAE uses a dummy artricle edit to say, "@AYW, you wanna make a change, convince us at talk" which is exactly what NAE refuses to do here. This is disruptive obfuscation.

• 1:31 on 7 Aug, NAE responds to my comment linking my own revert and his reinsertion of the disputed content by saying incorrectly "if you have problems with my article edit, please change it...." I had already tried reverting at 22:59 on 6 Aug, and failing that tried to insert in-text attribution at 00:22 & 00:25 on 7 Aug, and pointed out all of this carefully at the talk page. This is more disruptive obfuscation by NAE.

So that's the basic problem. Disruptive obfuscation, violation of discretionary sanctions, soapboxing, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed at the article talk page. What is so urgent about the situation that administrator intervention is necessary, when it appears that normal editor discussion is handling the matter sufficiently? Zaathras (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Because this editor should not jam new content into the article that has already been removed, and then pretend it was never removed, and then starting discussing my personal business profession that he discovered offline. I submitted this ANI request long before other editors happily showed up to help deal with this matter, I was stuck trying to deal with this BS for hours. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We're volunteers, not on a timeclock. Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No one says otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would first like to mention that since this thread has been open, I've been involved in the discussion of concern. However, I do think some of NAE's behavior here is concerning. It's not appropriate to mention someone's block history in a content discussion or aspects of a users personal life; such behavior is not WP:CIVIL and the latter could violate WP:PRIVACY. Also NAE reinstating a challenged edit they made within 24 hours IMO would constitute edit warring on a controversial article with Arbitration restrictions such as 2021 United States Capitol attack. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

reply by NewsAndEventsGuy

I will self impose a full project ban until I draft my full reply, but the accusation of improper outing requires immediate rebuttal. I did not discover AYW's law degree off wiki but by reviewing their turbulent on wiki history. (Placeholder... insert diff of the talk page thread congratulating Ferrylodge at time of their NYT interview.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC) UPDATE, I will provide the promised wikilinks after AYW's attempted walk-back below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything here about “outing”, improper or otherwise. I said you were using the article talk page as a “soapbox and forum” by discussing my profession, my block log, et cetera. But if someone wants to show your soapboxing was more than that, feel free. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

AYW accused me above of "discover(ing) offline" the fact s/he's an attorney. OUTTING is serious business so for the record....

• In 2007 three years into AYW's Misplaced Pages history, as their prior name "Ferrylodge", they boldly stated "I'm a patent attorney in Conneticut"
• In 2008, still as Ferrylodge, AYW gave their NYT interview which I discovered onwiki, not off, in threads at ANI and usertalk
• Also in 2008, still as Ferrylodge and announcing a wikibreak, AYW said "I've got to get out of here or I won't be a lawyer much longer (at least not an employed one)"

I will now resume my self imposed project ban while I prep my full reply; and BTW I have not looked at the or article talk since this filing popped up on my feed, so things here may have been overtaken by events over there, I don't know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

None of those links point to an article talk page. Discussing other editors’ block logs, professions, et cetera at article talk pages is not appropriate because they aren’t forums or soapboxes. And of course you already said you got this professional info about me from a NYT article rather from the pages you now link, I quoted you above (and you gave the link to the NYT here). I don’t want you digging into my background on-wiki or off-wiki and then sharing your findings at article talk pages where it’s irrelevant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So... is this resolved? Can we close? GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The problems will recur, there’s no acknowledgment of error or fault or anything. Is it okay for me to now start jamming my personal opinions back into high-profile leads after they’ve already been reverted? Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not alright for anyone to do that. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree we should keep it open, pending my BOOMERANG request to reimpose AYW's US Politics topic ban. With two elder deaths in the fam on two continents, I'm a bit busy in real life so I'll just stay away until we deal with this, but yeah... let's keep it open. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Absent any acknowledgment of error, I support prompt administrator action, the situation is clear. It doesn’t make much difference though, this user will undoubtedly start a new retaliatory section at ANI. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As you both wish. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you share personal details of yourself on-wikipedia, you have no expectation of being able to demand other users not mention these details. Zaathras (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not on article talk pages. What relevance does my block log have on article talk pages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The deaths in my family are inlaws and I've zero emotional impact, but I may be called to travel or do other logistical support so it may be awhile until I have my reply ready. In addition, my reply will attempt to show a pattern of low level LTA gaming and those are inherently difficult to research and document. I will resume a self-imposed project ban so there is no risk of disruption on my account. Er go, there is no reason we can't just leave this open until I can deal with it, and I'm working on it today. In the meantime, if AYW wants to withdraw this for some OTHER reason, that is AYW's perogative. But having been on the receiving end of their accusations, my preference is to keep it open and deal with the BOOMERANG I intend to file. I'll do it anyway as a standalone later but since AYW opened Pandora's Box, I'd rather just do it here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I withdrew and closed this thread, and then NEA has unilaterally reopened it without so much as pinging me, while also deleting my closing comment and signature. I’ll leave it up to ANI whether that action by NEA was proper or should be reverted, I stand by the closure and do not retract it. If this matter does proceed here, I hope that frivolous and/or bad faith allegations against me will be treated just like any other personal attacks if not more severely, and I can also dredge up historical diffs to corroborate and supplement my initial post here. It would be helpful if this matter proceeds here for user:NewsAndEventsGuy to let me know here whether he wants to focus on interactions between us, or intends to have a broader focus. Then I will know which I should do as well. My position is that NAE should restore my closing comment and closure, and start a new section at ANI if he wants to. Messing around with other users’ comments is not proper. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(A) If you want to re-close, go for it, just cite yourself as the reason, rather than the deaths in my wife's family

(B) re your desire to know whether I want "to focus on interactions between us, or intends to have a broader focus", that's easy. On May 22, 2022, you swore I fully and sincerely support the five pillars and promise to do everything I can to help support them. (See your request to lift your 4-year US politics Tban at ) If you believe you have done that, then as my offspring say..."chill-axe"...because there is nothing to worry about.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have to know what kind of case to make against you, as you are subject to BOOMERANG too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Demanded ping given . if you still want to close without blaming me or my wife or our family situation, that's fine. Just say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t blame your wife for a damn thing. NAE invited me to re-close (see above), I did so in the manner he requested, and again he reverts while deleting my comment and signature, deleting another comment of mine, and also posting at my talk page which I’ve already requested he not do (see first paragraph in this ANI section regarding his ban from my user talk). This guy is a gamer, and this thread stays open. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Now he apologizes for deleting my comment, while deleting another comment of mine. This is an experienced longstanding editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Simple edit conflicts, nothing more, as anyone can see by looking at the virtually simultaneous time stamps. I tried to fix it myself but a third party was seconds faster than me.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In an edit conflict, I find it impossible to comment and have to start over. During the last hour, you’ve deleted two separate comments by me in separate edits (putting aside your deletion of my closing comments), you’ve posted at my talk page (against your ban from my user talk) when pinging is all I requested, you’ve falsely accused me of blaming your wife, you’ve asked me to re-close in a manner that you then immediately rejected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

why the histrionics? If you wanna withdraw your accusations about me in the opening post here, just withdraw 'em and give reasons that are about you, not others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I closed this thread twice for you, not a third time. How about you throw your BOOMERANG instead of dragging this out indefinitely? After you throw your BOOMERANG, I will need equal time to prepare mine, and defend against yours. Jamming your personal opinions back into high-profile leads after they’ve already been reverted is not appropriate especially where discretionary sanctions apply. IMHO, your activity here today shows that you’ve already had plenty of time to give your response to my initial post above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the hurry or worry? If you've been doing the 5Ps I'm full of bullshit and can be ignored. As a real life attorney, you know that cross pleadings are allowed for several days after the plaintiff fires their cannon, and research during discovery can take a very long time. I'm self imposing a project ban, so if you're halo is aglow, just carry on and worry not. Or with draw this for your own reasons that are about you, not others. Either way is fine with me. But my work has been delayed one day because you haven't allowed me the courtesy of silence so I can do my work. That, of course, is a lawyer gaming tactic which I'll point out when I do come back with my full reply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you both like me to close/hat the entire thing, with no comment? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no comment now about that. As a technical matter, if an experienced user gets an “edit conflict” notice, is it correct that he has two choices? He can go back to his prior screen display and re-post, thus deleting all the edits he was conflicting with and deleting all subsequent edits, or alternatively he can start a new edit. That’s correct, correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, you have only one choice: start all over again to post your material.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I always do, and it never results in anyone else’s comment being deleted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

edit conflict, ironically....

Thanks, Bbb23, and that's what I try to do, and then I try to verify that I did it correctly, and when I'm aware I screwed up, I try to fix it. But when worked-up eds are cross-posting in blizzard conditions the white out that results impedes clear vision and the road gets slippery. So the smart eds slow way the hell down and quadruple the braking distance, and if there is a fender bender after all, there are always a few who will immediately scream "I'm gonna sue your ass" instead of asking "Hey, man, are you OK?" So relax, and try not to manufacture reasons to crucify others is my motto. Maybe I should write an essay on that theme. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to crucify you, Jesus. I would gladly close this thread a third time if you’d acknowledge that you could have done better with respect to the article edits I linked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: thanks for offering to do a nonadmin closure, but no thanks. If an admin, in their admin capacity, closes so be it. Otherwise, I believe Anythingyouwant needs to take ownership of their accusations against me. If they want to close, citing their own second thoughts or something else that is about them, I have no objection. But your nonadmin close will just kick a can of behavioral issues down the road, and it really needs to be addressed and resolved, in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I purposely have not (yet) presented evidence regarding other incidents involving NAE, so that this ANI experience would be quick and painless rather than blizzard conditions. However, the prospect of blizzard conditions will not deter me here; perhaps I won't scour Misplaced Pages for NAE's errors but I'll defend against any bogus accusations, and may even admit to some mistakes. I'll admit to a mistake right now, which is all I'm asking from NAE: in this edit of mine on 22 July, I jammed some material back into an article without consensus, I was wrong, and I promptly said so at the article talk page: "I try to abide by WP:BRD. I got provoked by the edit summary 'Removing editor POV insinuated into External Links list'. Such groundless personal attacks really get me annoyed. They’re no substitute for reasonable arguments. But I should have resisted the 'undo' button." The problem here with NAE is that he doesn't see anything wrong with jamming his personal opinions back into a lead after it was already rejected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk page flame warrior not learning anything

User:J1DW was previously blocked for incivility and has continued to be uncivil (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1073917568) and generally disrupt talk pages with not even wrong nonsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1102613760). I think this is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree that it is WP:NOTHERE behavior. He can be overly aggressive, but the contribs that I've looked at, he is talking about improving the articles, he is raising issues that arguably have merit. The way he is doing it can be abrasive, but I'm not sure it is uncivil. He would benefit from dialing back the intensity and verbosity. There are some issues, but I think you may be overstating it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis, I think he's making valid points. Arguments getting heated is to be expected when working in topics such as these, but it doesn't rise to the level of sanctionable incivility. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

    Calling people “jackass” and promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories after being sanctioned once isn’t WP:NOTHERE? Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about NOTHERE, but the signal to noise ratio on their talk page contribs is heavy on the uncivil noise. I would prefer to see a civility warning than inaction here. If we think the user is worth keeping around, a warning serves to either prompt improvement or save time if they're brought here again soon for similar issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back

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

Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what to do here. This user is on a campaign to remove almost every citation to Jason Colavito in Misplaced Pages. I warned him yesterday to stop which started a heated but, I thought, at least no longer disruptive to mainspace discussion at WP:FTN and WP:BLPN. Then I come to see that he has returned to his campaign , . Can an admin review this activity? It seems pretty problematic and hard to track. Serial removal of citations and content in WP:FRINGE articles is a pretty difficult thing to accept as a reasonable activity, IMHO. I want to assume good faith here, but it looks like a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH from what I can tell. jps (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

They removed a link to a personal tripod.com web page and to an OpEd, respectively. Seems that they are in the right on both. Zaathras (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The review was published in Skeptic Magazine. That it was hosted at the author's personal website is fairly beside the point. I can confirm it is the same review. I think that arguing that an OpEd right-of-response to a WP:FRINGE claim is something that needs to be removed is controversial at best. Do you disagree? jps (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Then it should be cited to Skeptic Magazine, not to the author's personal website. Skeptic Magazine is a reliable source. Personal websites are not. Ravenswing 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Right. The point is that this is a matter for WP:CLEANUP. The citation was to Skeptic Magazine. The URL just pointed to a copy of the article. But what happened was a wholesale removal of the citation and the uncontroversial text in exactly the way that Elizium23 warned is a problematic practice. jps (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Then surely the answer was to correct the citation, not remove it? — Shibbolethink 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The first removal is fine. There's already a much better quality source rebutting, so the PARITY argument is moot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There was content that was removed here about precision which is very valuable for the reader. jps (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes the classic spurious report to ANI immediately after being kicked off the user's talk page... Not in anyway transparent or disruptive. You will be lucky to survive this without a boomerang to the bum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you would just agree to stop your campaign, we could close this ANI filing. But you seem to be committed to treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground in articlespace. I don't see how to continue without escalation. jps (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"If you just stopping making edits I disagree with, I wouldn't have to take you to ANI." This is content, not conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

When someone stubbornly continues a campaign that has been identified by kBs of text as being at least controversial, you better believe this is conduct I'm worried about. jps (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Its interesting to see the arguments I made with you earlier get parroted back at me, I'm not treating this as a battleground and TBH I'm still bewildered at the opposition to what should have been a zero controversy removal of a non-notable blog written by a non-expert. Do you still stand by your accusations that I'm engaged in collusion with other editors in my "campaign" specifically "That it happens to be a campaign by you and a few others to remove Colavito's incisive criticism of the current UFO craze just happens to be this particular time." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Simply asserting that all you are doing is removing "non-notable blog written by a non-expert" does not make it so. You seem convinced of the righteousness of your actions. I'm asking you to stop and at least propose your changes on the talkpage first. jps (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well it certainly isn't because I have a "misguided personal vendetta" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish@Zaathras ] removed material sources to The New Republic's "Soapbox" section. The design company Pentagram says "As part of the redesign, TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting: The Soapbox, on politics; Apocalypse Soon, on climate change; Sold Short, on inequality; and Critical Mass, on culture." There's no indication that's an opinion sections. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"editorial" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Even granting that it is an OpEd, I see no policy-based justification for removing such from the article. WP:BLPSPS says nothing about "no op-ed"s and the paragraph(!) was in compliance with WP:ITA. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no evidence that it is editorial, only that it is investigative reporting. Horse Eye's Back's opinion isn't sufficient. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You literally provided the quote saying it was editorial... "TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

you are glossing over the more important part of that quotation: "in-depth reporting." — Shibbolethink 19:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In-depth reporting in a commentary or editorial piece doesn't change anything about its nature, its still treated as an opinion piece because it still is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what "editorial vertical" means. Editorial here is a term being used in contrast to advertising, not reporting. See, for example, this page by Shutterstock describing the difference in licensing images for advertising or editorial use, "Editorial content typically falls into what most people would consider 'news.'". When ESPN Digital closed its dedicated section about e-sports, that was described as closing the editorial vertical, not because it had published opinion content about e-sports, but because it was a dedicated section publishing non-advertising content about e-sports. The term that would contrast with reporting or news is opinion, not editorial. Finally, here's Reuters, describing the launch of an editorial vertical about the post-pandemic "great reboot" which they say will include both "news and insight," which is another way of saying that the editorial vertical will include both reportage and opinion or analysis.

--Jahaza (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this: just the word editorial alone applies to everything that is content in the news media. Andre🚐 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jahaza: I don't think I am... Look at the context in the source (which I will note is a design studio hired by TNR) "The New Republic is the premier US journal of liberal opinion, dedicated to addressing today’s most critical issues with commentary on politics, culture and the arts." Everything The New Republic publishes, in these verticals and elsewhere, is editorial/opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a completely different issue. The fact that you're misunderstanding what "editorial vertical" means doesn't mean that this article or even all of their articles can't be opinion. It means that editorial vertical doesn't mean that it's opinion.--Jahaza (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We disagree about what editorial vertical means in that context, I will agree it is ambiguous but the two options here are either its an editorial vertical or its an editorial vertical for editorials... Which for our purposes here on wikipedia are exactly the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't object to the New Republic source, that's properly a content issue. My problem with the other is that there is already a better quality source rebutting it, so an SPS isn't needed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

My beef is not with you, ScottishFinnishRadish. I have no doubt you would be willing to discuss these matters calmly and politely at the talkpage (I think that the source you want removed contains additional prominent information that deserves inclusion, but let's go to the talkpage). My beef is with someone who is continuing to remove sources in articlespace after being warned that this is pretty disruptive. And I see no chance of this letting up without some sort of third-party intervention. jps (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• This just seems like a content dispute; it would make far more sense to let WP:FRINGEN or WP:RSN handle it rather than here. Whether you're right or not about those sources being usable, removing them from a handful of pages (and that's all I'm seeing from the links you've provided) is not a conduct issue. Also, you should know better than to use a template like this for a content dispute with an established editor - come on. Those are for warning editors unfamiliar with policy when their edits are unequivocal vandalism, not for starting a discussion with an established editor over removals you simply disagree with. (The "first and only warning" template in particular is for edits that do things like replacing an entire page with "cocks cocks cocks cocks", not for something like this.) Also, it looks like the discussion at WP:FRINGEN on this source is trending generally against your position (am I correct in my understanding that these are the same dispute?), which makes bringing it here feel like WP:FORUMSHOP. Horse Eye's Back is right that you need to tone it down or risk a WP:BOOMERANG - Horse Eye's Black isn't going to get banned just because they disagree with you on the usability of a source or because they removed it on a handful of articles when you wish they wouldn't. Constantly accusing them of WP:PROFRINGE behavior also borders on WP:ASPERSIONS - you need more than just "they've removed a source I feel is necessary for WP:PARITY" to make that sort of accusation. It's fine to feel that the source needs to be used, but tone it down and focus on the sources and content, and not the editors involved. Or at least find better evidence that there's a serious long-term problem here rather than just one disagreement over a single author! --Aquillion (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you want a list of all the diffs from yesterday where they removed Colavito sources from many, many different articles? My complaint is not with removing sources from a handful of pages. My complaint is with the sustained campaign. I don't use templates like that often, but when I see WP:ADVOCACY like what I saw, I think it demands that you call attention to it in some way or another. Also, whether you like it or not, removing content from Misplaced Pages that helps characterize FRINGE positions is WP:PROFRINGE advocacy. We do have WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE tests for a reason. There is no use dancing around the issue. This is a question of disrupting the encyclopedia into making it a WP:POVPUSH towards the fringe theories Colavito is critiquing whether that is the intention or not. jps (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that removing inappropriate self-published sources on personal websites and blogs, means that we are pushing a POV in favor of fringe theories. I haven't made the edits myself, but I do think it is proper to remove self-published sources. We should ALSO remove the fringe theories they are debunking if those theories are similarly poorly sourced or otherwise problematic. RS and BLP don't go out of the window just because it's a fringe area. Andre🚐 17:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Intention does not matter. The outcome is to de-emphasize mainstream assessment of fringe theories. That is a POV-push in favor of fringe theories. It doesn't matter your motivation nor how you feel about what you are doing. jps (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The outcome is that some self-published blog sources that are not RS from a non-expert will be removed, which improves the encyclopedia. I'm not categorically endorsing the action, but I do think it is good faith and an attempt to improve things, and you are assuming bad faith by equating it with a POV push for fringe. Andre🚐 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming no intention whatsoever. The motivation of the person who is doing the removal is irrelevant to the outcome. jps (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Did you want a list of all the diffs from yesterday where they removed Colavito sources from many, many different articles? Well, yes. When you come to AE you're asking administrators to take action, and it's on you to make the case for that. If you just wave vaguely at someone's edit history, then it's less likely that anything will happen unless the problem is glaringly obvious at a glance... and it's easy to overestimate how deep a perceived problem is when you're knee-deep in it. If you think that the source is being removed from so many articles without consensus that it qualifies as WP:FAIT, you should demonstrate that. Either way, though, given the split at WP:FRINGEN - which doesn't seem, at a glance, to support your position - I would suggest just starting an RFC there or at WP:RSN to settle the underlying dispute. And if you feel that an editor's editing is so unreasonable as to be a WP:POVPUSH / WP:PROFRINGE, you should be able to point to a consensus that Colavito is obviously and unequivocally a high-quality or necessary source to the point where nobody can disagree in good faith, or to a broader history of issues outside of just this one dispute over one person. I'm not really seeing any possibility of you successfully making either argument at this point - the WP:FRINGEN discussion is full of people saying, in apparent good faith, that Colavito's blog isn't a great source - so it doesn't seem like something for WP:AE. That doesn't mean Horse Eye Black is necessarily right, and maybe if they've removed it from a bunch of articles with no prior consensus you could make a WP:FAIT argument but I'm just not seeing how you can successfully make the argument that their removals are so clearly bad as to represent a WP:POVPUSH / WP:PROFRINGE issue rather than a content dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, Aquillion, here you go: the targeted removal by HEB of Colavito-sourced material has happened here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and perhaps in other places I have missed. This is not simply a content issue, but rather a behavioral pattern of disruptive, seemingly WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY editing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Check again. Theres no material removed in a lot of those... Just the (generally redundant) citation to a non-RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Your desire to eradicate all citations to Colavito from Misplaced Pages should have been floated at WP:RSN first. By first discussing your intentions to undertake such a large scale campaign, you could have avoided problematic edits like this as well as speculation from other editors that you intend WP:FRINGE ideas to be uncriticized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I had no such desire, that wasn't a large scale campaign or a campaign at all it was barely a dozen edits. I do not believe that we should eradicate all citations to Colavito from Misplaced Pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say 13 is technically "barely a dozen" but that doesn't make it an acceptable amount of unilateral changes wrt this source. — Shibbolethink 20:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing all that material (yes, citations qualify as article material) from multiple articles within a brief period, and without any discussion, certainly looks like a Gatling gun-ish campaign to eradicate a source you do not like. If you are truly not advocating a pro-fringe pov, HEB, going forward perhaps it would be best to stop doing that and engage in discussions about your desired edits. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You said "Colavito-sourced material" not just material. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that poor phrasing is on me. Seems really, really minor compared to the disruptive behavior that initiated this ANI report, though. Will you agree to stop those rapid-fire, discussion-free removals of citations to Colavito? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not currently engaging in "rapid-fire, discussion-free removals of citations to Colavito" so it is not possible for me to do that. Does that answer your question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What you believe is a non-RS, disputed by many multiple other editors. The proper course of action here is an RfC on WP:RSN, not the wholesale removal of the source from everywhere it appears on the project. I can see that as an uninvolved editor, that this was bound to create more dispute, not less... — Shibbolethink 19:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a Colavito ref is being used as a redundant citation, it should be removed per SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, but I think the issue is that many users here do not believe these uses are truly redundant. — Shibbolethink 12:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Of these, I think the SPLC and the TNR are fine to keep in. Some of them are valid removals, usage of personal blog/personal website without a clear application of self-published expertise. I don't buy the argument that Colavito is an expert on all these random historical topics like conquistadors and ancient Rome. Andre🚐 19:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove SPLC, its just a weird looking diff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yup. Good catch, sorry. Andre🚐 19:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument we should be having at RSN, not an argument we should be having after an editor removes every mention of the citation. I don't think this is particularly actionable, but it definitely isn't the approach I would have taken. We should strive for less dispute and disruption, and removing many multiple citations because one believes it is a just action when others disagree is not the right call. — Shibbolethink 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not " every mention of the citation" that is wild and I would never do that. Even if for nothing else theres still WP:ABOUTSELF so its really hard to see a situation in which that would be the right call. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye was bold, he was partially reverted or disputed, and now we are discussing it. In several places now. Andre🚐 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back doesn't seem to have noticed that Colavito has been well received in peer reviewed journals.

His book on the Mound Builder Myth has a positive review in the Journal of Southern History, as does The Western Historical Quarterly

The International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts#Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts reviews The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science Review Essay: The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science Knowing Fear: Science, Knowledge and the Development of the Horror Genre by Jason Colavito Review by: D. Harlan Wilson Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, Vol. 20, No. 1 (75) (2009), pp. 109-116 in a long review concluding "Academia aside, this is among the finest introductions to the horror genre I have read."

Science Fiction Studies gives him a positive review of "The Cult of Alien Gods:H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture" Wilson, D. Harlan. Review of Review Essay: The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science, by Jason Colavito. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 20, no. 1 (75) (2009): 109–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24352317.

Same journal, another positive review of ""A Hideous Bit of Morbidity": An Anthology of Horror Criticism from the Enlightenment to World War" concluding "I recommend "A Hideous Bit of Morbidity" to those interested in the history and development of the horror genre and I hope that a companion volume covering the more recent era will be forth" Ransom, Amy J. Review of Delightful Horrors, by Jason Colavito. Science Fiction Studies 37, no. 1 (2010): 115–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40649592. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You should post this on Talk:Jason Colavito, ANI is for discussing behavior issues not content disputes. This info also appears to be three days late, next time if you have scholarly sources provide them on day one of a content dispute (especially if you're then going to make snide remarks about them not being noticed). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

PrinceStingySpoilero and Norway IPs

• PrinceStingySpoilero (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2A01:799:B27:4600:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

PrinceStingySpoilero is a rather uncommunicative editor who makes minor style adjustments to many music articles. Some of the style adjustments are against policy, but PrinceStingySpoilero doesn't use talk pages and has not changed their habits in response to notices from me or The Keymaster. The first communication I ever saw from them is this angry comment today in an edit summary.

We are here because of edit-warring violations of WP:MULTIPLE, with PrinceStingySpoilero teaming with Norway IP range Special:Contributions/2A01:799:B27:4600:0:0:0:0/64 to continue reverting my reverts. Example A. Example B.

If I could get this person's attention, I would first tell them that commas are fine for lists of two or three items in an infobox, and that going around changing away from commas is a violation of WP:STYLEVAR. Another point I would make would be about not adding small fonts to the infobox per MOS:SMALLFONT. Otherwise, some of the editor's work is useful. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked one week for disruptive editing, with no comment on the IP — one hopes this not only prevents the ongoing disruption, but catches their attention and promotes some discussion. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP range is continuing the edit war. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, everyone. This person has been driving me nuts with their never ending unnecessary edits, and as Bink said, they seem to have no interest in communicating, nor familiarizing themself with the basic tenets of the MOS. I'm hoping this temporary block works, but I'm not holding my breath. I will keep you posted if I see anything. — The Keymaster (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! We're done here. Binksternet (talk)

Troublesome IP editors in articles about Mesopotamian deities

In a number of articles about Mesopotamian deities, including Nergal (got locked until the end of August due to this activity), Hadad, Resheph, Ištaran, Nindara, Anat and more, a range of IPs (which might belong to a single user but I cannot verify this; the pattern of action is always similar, though) engage in disruptive editing, mostly involving attempts to force original research into them, though sometimes also rendering the infoboxes difficult to use by adding images through means other than the infobox template (see the Anat article earlier today for a recent example). The edits usually involve attempts at proving completely unrelated deities are identical (the fact it ultimately always boils down to the same two deities is what made me suspect this might be a single person at work), and typically twist sources already provided in the article to support the opposite of what they actually say (for a very recent and rathet blatant example, see the Anat article again, where they try to prove an article by a well established expert in the field, Jo Ann Hackett, explicitly advising researchers to avoid describing goddesses as interchangeable, actually justifies their own "research" relying on this very assumption). Often they attribute own thoughts to credible authors, the content of whose publications is easy to verify. They also randomly copy paste references from articles without adding the corresponding entry to the bibliography, and without crediting the article they copy pasted from appropriately. In some cases, this makes actual work which needs to be carried out (which there is a lot of, many articles about this topic are stubs or rely on fringe or outdated sources) incredibly difficult. Their additions typically have little to do with the section of the article they add their original research to, as well (for example in the Nergal article they added their ideas about cities of Marad and Kish, both in historical Babylonia, to a section discussing Nergal's relation to deities outside Mesopotamia altogether). Furthermore, these anonymous users (or user) appear to never use the talk page, and instead will randomly edit articles in inconsequential ways (ex. changing punctuation) to leave notes for other users in the edit summary. The notes are often rude but that's beside the point, my key issue is meritorical. I avoid bothering Misplaced Pages higher ups most of the time and simply contribute silently, but this problem has been ongoing since early summer and it is getting difficult to deal with. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: Please provide the specific IP ranges and diffs; you must also notify the IP users ot their talk page using {{subst:ANI notice}}.The most recent IP editors to the Anat article were 93.35.64.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.44.2.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.35.64.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 93.36.40.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); the last of whom left several complaints about you at their talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's the same person, I see they have been notified on one of their numerous talk pages by anoher user (well, you) already, thanks. Their complaint boils down to being unable to add unsourced or poorly sourced information (typically lifted from articles over a century old, or obtained by completely misinterpreting sources - see the Anat article, they quite literally try to make Hackett's article say the opposite of what it does) to articles into which others poured, at times, weeks of work. I should also note they appear to operate on the assumption I am male which is not true and I would prefer to not be labeled this way. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a new user who doesn't understand referencing rules or WP:OR. I've tried to direct them to WP:REFB and WP:BRD as a start, and pointed them towards the article talk page. as Anat is now semi protected they will hopefully engage at the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

They more or less learned to cite but they still add original research to articles as of today. See Nindara. They found a century old snippet, added a google books source more or less properly (though without bothering to find the author or any such details, they are pointless after all), and then followed it up with made up explanation. Also note that there is no such a deity as "Išhanna" in any credible modern publication, nor is Ishara or Inanna connected to Nindara. Their editing continues to be disruptive. The fact that wikipedia articles about Mesopotamian deities were seldom particularly rigorous does not justify original research and presenting long outdated articles as facts. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said they did, but neither do I have any knowledge of the area. For reference they are at 93.36.42.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today. It might be useful to ask for semi protection on their other usual targets until they understand the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried with another of their targets and the results were mixed, I will try with Nindara though. Also: note the scope of the problem is likely goes well beyond what I am aware of (iirc you pointed out yesterday that they were active in the Baal article, for example), I do not "patrol" every ANE deity page contrary to what they seem to imagine, and the field has very few active editors to monitor what is happening with individual pages. Unsourced original research is incredibly common though few users engaging in it are this persistent. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Further update: on my talk page, under a host of new IPs, most recently 93.35.65.19, the user confirmed directly they see no issue with breaking Misplaced Pages rules on reliable sources and original research, and they appear to be motivated by a strange agenda tied to Siciliy. The lack of credibility of Albright specifically has been highlighted by users more familiar with Bible scholarship than I am for example on the page Talk:Anat and I do not believe the argument needs to be repeated here. It is abnundantly clear the user does not show willingness to learn and will continue to add unsourced, poorly sourced and outdated information to articles, ignore talk pages of them and attribute own views to other authors. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to delete my personal Misplaced Pages page

I Naveen Jain with User:Cecellixcd wishes to delete my personal Misplaced Pages article. I mistakenly edited my Misplaced Pages article but later I realized the issue of COI. After some months, I learned numerous things on Misplaced Pages, and I found that Misplaced Pages is an independent foundation where anyone can make constructive edit, suggest and lay a complain to editors & administrators.

I am not interested in having a Misplaced Pages article because there are some haters who are using a single-sourced hate article in a local newspaper to spread false rumors. I am worried that this has started hurting my kids or numerous people in my family. Please delete the page as soon as possible to avoid causing accidental harm to my family in this environment of people finding a reason to hurt others but as Misplaced Pages is an independent foundation they will considered my request immediately. Hope my above request will be considered.Here is the link of my personal Misplaced Pages article;https://en.wikipedia.org/Naveen_Jain Cecellixcd l (talk) 02:03, 08 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cecellixcd. The article Naveen Jain is not going to be deleted because Jain is a notable person and this is an encyclopedia. You can make a formal Edit request at Talk: Naveen Jain identifying the source spreading false rumors. If that is correct, then the source and the content it supports will be removed from the article. Do not edit the article yourself, because you have a Conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that proxy editing, you're requesting? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The biographies of public figures are generally not deleted from Misplaced Pages because of complaints from the subject. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The best you can do is start a new discussion at Talk:Naveen Jain and suggest a treatment of the negative material. If there is some pushback, you will need to convince multiple editors and achieve consensus for change. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This page could really stand to have a few more active watchers. There's been an unusually persistent push since literally days after it was created fifteen years ago to remove any whiff of criticism, which culminated in a horde of sockpuppets actually managing to get the article deleted this past February to make way for a freshly-written hagiographic stub ready to take its place. On the plus side, it goes through long periods of inactivity, so watching it isn't much of a burden. —Cryptic 02:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Beyond the above comments ... if you really are Naveen Jain, you can't imagine that a public figure of your notoriety is immune to being discussed on social media. Nor does a "think of the children!" argument carry any merit (not when your children are in their twenties and thirties, anyway, and presumably are quite capable of avoiding your Misplaced Pages article if it suits them to do so). Nor is it conceivable that "haters" using a "local newspaper" is of unusual concern when your doings are discussed by CNBC, Forbes, Business Insider and major metropolitan dailies. Nor are you a marginal figure who has chosen to withdraw from public life, which is the only real criterion to accept such a request. Ravenswing 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Previous AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain, which was very sock-riddled. Also note that InfoSpace (Dot Com crash) was CSD G10 around the same time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We're gonna need a broader block

Of this IP range . The partial block issued by Tamzin appears insufficient, with the user now trolling multiple articles and talk pages such as Community, Group, Social group, Government and Government (disambiguation). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oh. I just glanced at the edit history going back a week. This is a deeply disruptive range. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Remarkably sleepy /16. Going to be conservative now with a week's siteblock, given the size of the range, but it looks like this could conceivably be blocked much longer without significant collateral damage. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've done another round of revdels. (Just treating any version of that mixed-language/mixed-script rant as presumptively revdellable since it usually contains BLPvio and always is of no encyclopedic value.) If I missed anything, anyone is welcome to let me know off-wiki. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Tamzin. Is there any reason not to revert the mishegoss they left at multiple article talk pages? I'm not going to do it tonight. And yeah, the harassment of Zinnober9 is more fodder for a lengthy block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've blanked some stuff. Feel free to get more if I've missed anything. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've reverted more rants from one or two talk pages. The disruptions, going back at least a month, are truly impressive. If they pick up with more of the same after the block expires I'll request a much longer ban. I don't see evidence that the IP range has offered anything constructive in that time period. Thanks again, Tamzin. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Full support of a full block. I had just reported them to AIV here before 2601:19E... informed me of this incident report. I'll add that in addition to those edits by the problematic range, that they left a mostly incoherent comment on my talk page accusing me of "working against humanity to be unconstitutional" , and followed it up with (using IP 106.67.103.236, rather than ‎106.67.56.10) a false accusation claiming I was conducting "private illegal business to gain individual benefits" and demanding I prove to them I'm an admin. I have no administrative powers, and I am not conducting any business here, illegal or otherwise. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Continued Harassment, Personal Attacks and Uncivil comments, restoring removed threats on my talk page again and again by User:Hongqilim

It's been more than One and half days now, User:Hongqilim crossed the whole limits and putting all the energy on personal attacks, harassment, vandalising my talk page. This has been gone to a whole different level now! Every 5 minutes after, I get a threat and I am totally frustrated now! See, WP:DRRC, it has now gone beyond that!

*Everytime I remove threats, User:Hongqilim post it again and again and again. It is now frustrating to see such User exists! Here is my talk page history

*And still now, User:Hongqilim is posting these Special:Diff/1103067110, Special:Diff/1103066036, Special:Diff/1103065049

*Reverting my revert on my Talk page Special:Diff/1103065049, Special:Diff/1103068406

*Restoring removed threats

*Using loads of derogatory comments and loads of personal attacks on me.

*Commenting on different sections of Talk page which is completely different from this issue!

*WP:ADMINSHOPPING with using references by restoring previously removed sections of my talk page and rephrasing words and then teaming up with editors who had a different issue addressed on my talk page.

Following WP:RPA I removed all threats again and again but my talk page vandalism continues. Put warning on User talk:Hongqilim but this is continuing like a rollercoaster now.

All of the incident start with a revert of this edit Special:Diff/763184178, which I labelled as Vandalism because User:Hongqilim deliberately introduced wrong numbers which I calculated and the prev version stands out to be correct and the wrong version kept on adding in each year like a Chain reaction, I reverted it Special:Diff/1102841903 with an edit summary which is mandatory to put to explain the changes I have done, quoting "(reverted vandalism by User:Hongqilim, Special:Contributions/103.169.215.63)" I could use rv/v instead but the meaning remains the same.

I didn't put any warning template because this edit was almost 5 yrs back so I refrained form doing so! Now, it comes User:Hongqilim with this Section on my talk page User talk:Sneha04#Vandalism on Commonwealth Games articles, (although now the limit is crossed, User:Hongqilim using multiple section and restoring previously removed section of my talk page, and commenting on them.) I replied with enough clarify that Users making such deliberate vandalism blatantly should have no room to speak on! I welcome co-operation and already collaborating with some more editors under Wikiproject Commonwealth to reverify pages, but I call out this edit as obvious vandalism on edit summary which is different from disruptive editing as it made more than enough blatant disruption to Project's purpose! But things doesn't stop here, User:Hongqilim continues to put energy to make new section and continue harassments.

Now,

• "he has already started to act as if he is an admin.", I don't know which part of my reply seemed to be like an Admin yet not clarified by User:Hongqilim, (BTW, I don't like to get presumption of my gender that's why I myself use neutral phrase instead of gender pronouns something like this WP:GENDER)
• "Think you are a powerful user? Prove to the admins you are! Don't say I didn't tell you, You cannot take my freedoms away! I am not convinced you are the powerful user you claim yourself to be.", I don't know why to establish myself as "powerful user"
• "Why bother other people's business when you can mind your own?"
• "Remember that you are not mighty and like me" I don't want to be mighty, Misplaced Pages is collaborative platform and not a place of introducing deliberate disruption!
• "Do you need help? What is your problem? If old edits can be labelled as vandalism, then what am I even doing here?" I already clarified the reason for calling it vandalism so no reason to ask it again and again!

And a loads of comments are there!

• Questioning whether my gender can face like a man. See here
• Showing experience criteria, See here "Are you living in a world of fantasy? Why are you fantasising yourself as an admin when you are just a less than a year User."

After all these, User:Hongqilim went on to WP:FORUMSHOPPING to get a favour from two different Admin's talk page, User talk:Abecedare#Commonwealth Games Vandalism and User talk:Moneytrees#Commonwealth Games Vandalism! Using evidences by restoring different deleted section from my talk page history which have whole different issue and then rephrasing those words for teaming up and meatpuppeting with User:Silverdragon3002 to go on a campaign against me. And the endless threats and WP:HUSH on my talk page goes on.
Sneha04  08:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to talk to you, but the only words you said were insisting that I was wrong!--Hongqilim (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your reasons that I have vandalised the articles were valid.--Hongqilim (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my last resort, because I don't believe I have done such a thing.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you said randomly changing the numbers on 1998 Commonwealth Games was an act of vandalism?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Only after 5 years of editing on the article you said that I was vandalising the article? That was ridiculous!--Hongqilim (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed what I said earlier to the admins, which I also admit I was wrong, because I want to talk to you politely.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do it on purpose if I ever did, why accuse me? Wouldn't it be as simple as just replacing those numbers, if you think your figure was correct?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have been editing on Misplaced Pages for 7 years, but never had anyone like Sneha04 accused me of vandalising articles.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What did you mean by teaming up and meatpuppeting with Silverdragon3002? I don't remember I've ever did that.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember I have done any such thing as randomly changing numbers.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why was it you that found out my wrongdoing and not anyone else, if I ever did it?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Hongqilim: Can you stay off Sneha04's talk page please? @Sneha04: Can you use the undo option with a descriptive edit summary rather than a revert marked 'vandalism' for these kind of edits please? On the content issue, what do the sources say? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Removed it. Hongqilim (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Malcolmxl5, User:Hongqilim crossed the limit, used vulgar words, and for all those behaviour, there need to be serious action ! User:Hongqilim became soft after the report here on ANI, if I wouldn't take it to here, it could go worst!

  I already explained why I labelled it as vandalism and I know the difference between Vandalism and disruptive editing as per WP:PG, it was a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages as it continued mistake following to all time medal table each year on chain format. I told, I didn't put any warning template because this edit was almost 5 yrs back so I refrained from doing so! I just used edit summary.. and I don't derserve all these treats, personal attacks and harrassment for labelling out the wrong thing.

  On content issue, here is what source says,

  Kenya had 7 Gold, 5 Silver and 4 bronze and New Zealand had 8 Gold, 6 Silver and 20 bronze in medal tally respectively!

  but what this edit says? Sneha04  10:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  What vulgar words did I used?--Hongqilim (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I already tried to talk to you nicely. This is how you reply to me.--Hongqilim (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Vandalism is defined as action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. How come what I did was deliberate?--Hongqilim (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is editing the project in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or degrading in any way. Was it by INTENTION? Hongqilim (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  How do you identify my intentions?--Hongqilim (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, Another rephrasing of words? where did I mentioned? "Public and Private Property?" Don't forget there is page history! Are you trying to get a favour here by rephrasing my words in your way? And it can be check anytime who said what? I have already mentioned what vulgar or rude words you have used! Vandalism on Commonwealth Games articles section tells all about.

  And yes you deliberately introduced wrong numbers, and you have no stand on that! And cherry picking words from Policies and doesn't make any sense and can't change the complete sense of Vandalism. I clarified before why it is labelled as Vandalism.

  But I even after I clarified it on reply on my talk page, you gone on a rapid harassment campaign! And you have continued so and violated a lots of User policies like WP:DRRC even after I put level-4 warning template on your talk page!

  And the vandalism still going on my talk page even after report at ANI.

  Now IT IS ENOUGH!!! Sneha04  11:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not really--Hongqilim (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  It was. Not now.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  What did you mean by rephrase?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now and then you always viewed me with suspicion don't you?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hongqilim seems very clueless about what they are and are not allowed to do on another user's talkpage. Immediately after Malcolmxl5' very polite request above to stay off Sneha04's page, Hongqilim removed a big chunk of back-and-forth from the page and noted here, below Malcolm's request, that they had done so. I have blocked them from Sneha04's talkpage, since polite requests aren't doing it. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC).

  I apologise for what I did on Sneha04's talk page.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was wrong.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pity it took a block to convince you of that. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC).

  I really was impulsive just now, as I was trying to make things clear of what was happenning to me, I mean seriously.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not really, these are the things I have say about the whole incident.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  From the beginning I really wanted to talk about it, seriously.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am trying to be honest all along.--Hongqilim (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you trying to tell me you are taking Sneha04's side?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mean really, is this how Misplaced Pages does things?--Hongqilim (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting nothing from harassment, instead of getting the blocked, you also leave a bunch of unhelpful comments on my talk page and then removed it, growth up son. --Aleenf1 11:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Now you are trying to get yourself involved, isn't it?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Your issue is being solved if I am not mistaken. I told you on my comments right? I admit it was a mistake, but you are trying to raise it again. Aren't you?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your problem now? I just hope you don't treat people with suspicion when editing sport articles in the future. If you continue doing that, I will report you as well in the future.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean I "grow up"? You should grow up too! Improve your English first before you talk to me. This forum is none of your business now.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to improve on your attitude towards people too!--Hongqilim (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful? Since when I am going to help you?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Now get out!--Hongqilim (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND, acting childish never help. --Aleenf1 12:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not childish. What makes you think I am?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You still don't want to give up, don't you?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you just give up already?--Hongqilim (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What else do you want from me? If there is nothing else, then get lost!--Hongqilim (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I just hope this dispute can be resolved without biased towards anyone else. That's all I want.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please give me the chance to speak for myself.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) "Chance to speak for self"?? You are bludgeoning this thread. You keep adding multiple, unnecessary replies over and over again and giving no chance for administrators to review. Singularity42 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just explaining. What is it that matter to you?--Hongqilim (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hongqilim Please stop. In approximately five hours you have done over 40 replies to this thread. You are not letting anyone review or look at this issue. You need to stop replying to everything, take a little break, and let administrators review the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

ok--Hongqilim (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to understand why Sneha claimed that I vandalised the 1998 Commonwealth Games article 5 years ago? He even tagged my so-called past wrongdoing in one of his edit comments at India at the Commonwealth Games. What if I really had never intended to vandalise any articles on Misplaced Pages? Never had I been accused a vandal in all my 7 years here until now.--Hongqilim (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Break and Resolution

(Non-administrator comment) I've done my best to review the situation and here's what I think has occurred:

• User:Sneha04 reverted a 2017 edit by Hongqilim with an edit summary that it was vandalism. While there may or may not have been issues with the 2017 edit, it was probably jumping the gun by a long shot calling it vandalism.
• User:Hongqilim took issue with his edit being described as vandalism. However, they seem to have gone on quite a bit over this, making a large number of edits on various talk pages taking issue with the description, being uncivil, and restoring edits to a user talk page after they have been reverted.
• Sneha04 and Hongqilim got into it quite a bit over various talk pages, issuing warnings and/or threatening to go to admins, and ultimately landing in ANI. There's also been a bit of bludgeoning on this thread, more so by Hongqilim (which has been part of Hongqilim's issue on the other talk pages.

An administrator has already taken partial action by blocking Hongqilim from Sneha04's talk page. If both editors can abide by the following, I'm not sure further administrator involvement is needed and this thread could potentially be closed.

• Both editors should review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
• Sneha04 should familiarize themselves with WP:NOTVANDALISM
• Hongqilim should familiarize themselves with WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BLANKING, and start a practice of only replying once in a thread and waiting for a response rather than replying many many times to a single point (which is a problematic pattern with the editor on many talk pages).

If both editors could confirm to committing to the above, I think admin involvement can be avoided. Just my two cents. Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Emotions and look back to the past, forcefully want to get the things stick, lay down the unnecessary comments, that's the problem and never help. --Aleenf1 01:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I told you to get lost already. Like I said, you view other users with suspicion. Look at what you said, is this how you treat the users here? I won't bother you if you treat all users nicely.--Hongqilim (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. This is not how WP:CIVIL works. You are enjoined to treat all editors civilly whether or not they meet with your approval. If you do not understand this, and you cannot abide by it -- "I told you to get lost already" is very far from the mark, especially after already being warned -- then you are a poor fit for a collaborative effort such as Misplaced Pages. Ravenswing 04:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I really was rude just now, I apologise. I really don't know what should I say to these users, especially when their way of dealing with admins, reviewers and users seems confrontational to me.--Hongqilim (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have issues with Aleenf1 on sporting articles and like Sneha, Aleen always view me and the other users involved with suspicion. Could you please talk to him? I doubted if the rules in Misplaced Pages is like how Aleenf1 and Sneha04 interpret it to be.--Hongqilim (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Based off this diff I think it may be beyond a simple caution. The response to your caution of civility is to tell someone to get lost. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know how to talk to them. I mean what should I do now? If Misplaced Pages runs like how Aleenf1 and Sneha04 think it has always been, I doubted if they would have been called geniuses since long time ago. By then, they would have been Admins here for YEARS! This is what Aleenf1 does: citing things like MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE and MOS:NOICONS, as if he knows how these rules really APPLIES when arguing with the users in his talk page!--Hongqilim (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously WP:NOTHERE --Aleenf1 04:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So this is how you interpret Misplaced Pages rules. Never have I seen in Misplaced Pages that there are users, I mean reviewers who could challenge other users or reviewers with Misplaced Pages rules like you! Look at how ridiculous you are! Is this how you dismiss other users or reviewers in Sports articles and talk pages?--Hongqilim (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your response shows a clear lack of understanding of the way Misplaced Pages works, and the idea that because these two editors are NOT admins, that their interpretations of the guidelines are less valid. This is not the case. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know if what I saw in them were wrong. But this is how I see them so far. I mean did Aleenf1 and Sneha04 actually talk to the admins about Misplaced Pages before?--Hongqilim (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hongqilim I don't see how is that relevant. Admins are editors just with additional tools, albeit given after a discussion by the commmunity to grant them the access. There are editors who are perfectly fine editing on Misplaced Pages without being admins for years, and may not want to be admins for one reason or another. And before casting asperasions like did Aleenf1 and Sneha04 actually talk to the admins about Misplaced Pages before, I urge that you check through their respective user contributions (a good starting point is through xtools) and you may see that they have interacted with various (former/current) admins at various times in their editing career here. – robertsky (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I might want to follow their directions unquestionably. I need some time to think about it. Maybe I will start off with apologising to Aleenf1, Sneha04 and the admins involved for my rude and uncivilised behaviour, for blanking and bludgeoning and harassment or something like that? I was wrong by telling Aleenf1 to get lost and I did so because I want the user to leave the topic as it is an affair between me and Sneha04. To tell the truth, I bludgeoned Aleenf1 talk page because the conflict between me and Sneha04 reminds me of what I thought about Aleenf1 and the other users on sporting articles.--Hongqilim (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, WP:NOTHERE requires more common sense than Hongqilim appears capable of providing. A consistent pattern has emerged: Antagonize/bludegeon/harass, apologize, repeat. Apologies are not empty words and need to follow with actions that compliment the expression of regret. Otherwise, they are worthless. I recommend that Hongqilim take some time to refrain from further replies, self-reflect, take a break from WP, and re-engage in a month with an improved demeanor. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not just apologies, I have a lot to talk about it. I believe I have information that could assist with the investigation.--Hongqilim (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What an utter mess. Two editors fighting and shouting about edits to an article which changes the medal tally from 670 to 672 (in 2017) and back (in 2022), when the official result

I recently just discover a way to resolve the conflict between me and the other user, which is through Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. I found it at the top of the noticeboard and I really wished I could resolve the conflict this way if I found it earlier, but my concern is: is there other way to do it and how do I know if the allegation of the other user against me was untrue?--Hongqilim (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you just drop the topic entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Aigurland : edit-warring academic boosterism for Paris 1 Sorbonne

User:Aigurland is edit-warring to promote Paris 1 on its page: (promotional vocabulary, old positive ranking inserted instead of the last rankings erased) Also on that page: (putting Paris 1 first even if it was the last created, deleting the history part that talks about another university)

They may be a sockpupeet of the blocked user XIIIfromTOKYO because they accuse me on my talk page to be a sockpuppet of a former user like him:

--Ransouk (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Ransouk, dear administrators. Having found that the Collège de droit in France page was particularly biased in favor of one University (Assas) over all the other universities listed (due to Lanubee's bias, which got it permanently blocked) I made it more encyclopedic by deleting some of the advertising passages and adding sourced content on all the other Universities on the page that had been neglected until then(history). My set of edits from July 20 can be found in the history, and I invite anyone interested in this case to read it, as it helps to understand how the page was a big advertisement and how my edits made it more neutral. But on August 6, 2022, without going to my talk or the article's talk, Ransouk deleted changes by an undo with the message "Sourced content deleted, chronological order"(diff). Seeing that I posted a message on his talk page that I invite you to read(the talk page). Then I undid his undo by explaining that this method was anti-Misplaced Pages and that it was imperative to pass in talk, to discuss each passage(my undo). He answered a short message(the talk page) and undid my work again(his second undo). Then, (see the "update" on his talk) I discovered that he had also deleted my contribution to the Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University page(his undo on this page). So, I also undid him(my undo on this page) and asked him to switch to talk page (which he obviously didn't do). And now I see that instead of responding to me politely as any contributor would have done he posts on the admin incidents page. If any brave administrator feels like reading this and restoring order so that we can work seriously on these pages, I thank you. Finally, I would like to draw your attention to one point: the user Ransouk created his account and started contributing exactly 6 months after Lanubee was blocked (and I've done some research now : Lanubee has apparently created quite a few sockpuppets). I don't know if he is one too, but I have to point it out (by the way, he almost only contributes on Assas and in favor of Assas which is POV PUSHING). PS: I'm obviously not going to contribute again on those pages while the administrators make up their minds, but I hope to be able to contribute again soon because we're back to almost Lanubee state on “Collège de droit in France” which isn’t neutral. Aigurland (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User 85.64.76.29

Defamatory personal attacks Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I may not have the time and energy to go through any such discussions here or in other noticeboards and such places. I invite everyone to inspect each and every one of my edits. Go ahead and click>> 85.64.76.29 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I did. And the fact you insist to repeatedly call editors antisemites is enough to block you for 72 hours for personal attacks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Static IP, so if that doesn't get the job done, more time will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Happydaze1

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

Happydaze1 (talk · contribs) appears to be spamming/canvassing a large number of pages in order to make some sort of point about one of Julian Assange's accusers (Talk:Julian Assange#Poll: Should the fact that one of the accusers against Julian Assange was once working as a contractor for the CIA be included?). Originally I thought it was just a few because thats all that was on my talk page but looking at their contributions this is a widespread issue. Examples:. Given that the underlying subject is solidly in BLP territory, the allegations being made are serious (and unsupported), and its disrupting such a large number of talk pages I think this warrants admin attention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a poll. Happydaze1 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Happydaze1: There is nothing inherent in a poll that allows it to be spammed to multiple talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Full text on the Central Intelligence Agency talk page:

== Poll

Should the fact that one of the accusers against Julian Assange was once working as a contractor for the CIA be included? ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Julian_Assange#Poll:_Should_the_fact_that_one_of_the_accusers_against_Julian_Assange_was_once_working_as_a_contractor_for_the_CIA_be_included?

My comment in the poll:

this is typical CIA MO Modus operandi. To contract out their dirty work. See National Endowment for Democracy in which people openly admitted that this was the role of the NED.

https://shadowproof.com/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

ASSANGE ACCUSER WORKED WITH US-FUNDED, CIA-TIED ANTI-CASTRO GROUP

40 organizations signed this:

• https://www.ecpmf.eu/open-letter-to-the-u-k-government-to-free-julian-assange/

Should the fact that one of the accusers against Julian Assange was once working as a contractor for the CIA be included? Happydaze1 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You can not say "lie" on Misplaced Pages or call anyone a lair.

User:Horse Eye's Back

"...the allegations being made are serious (and unsupported)"

This is 100% untrue

Happydaze1 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to review WP:V and WP:BLP. To know whether someone is lying or is simply mistaken requires knowledge of intent, that is it requires some knowledge of their thoughts... Thats not really possible in such a context as this most of the time so we try to assume goof faith, perhaps this is where you're getting that idea from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Happydaze1: That would justify a mention at the CIA's talk page and maybe the NED's, but not the dozen or so other talk pages you've sent the message to. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The pages I added this poll too was all of the groups that supported his release. This is will within Misplaced Pages guidelines I believe. Happydaze1 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Julian_Assange#Can_you_please_provide_a_list_of_organization_which_support_Julian_Assange's_freedom_on_Wikipedia?

There is archived discussions about it on the talk page, buried. Happydaze1 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

JFC, would you stop spamming this everywhere? Not only is it canvassing, it's malformed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why does this look so much like a ton of your own original research you are trying to insert into articles? FrederalBacon (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed a reply from Happydaze1 as completely offtopic on ANI, and full of possible BLP violations Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's reaching the point where at a minimum a topic ban from Julian Assange is probably justified. Nil Einne (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Based off of the reply you removed alone, I agree. Clear bias regarding the subject. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably because it's all of the above and should be removed on the basis that it's completely unreadable and nonsense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Happydaze1: In the deleted comment, you said the issue "has been discussed ad nauseam", and now you are casting a wide net to get people to participate in a new discussion. Do you see how this certainly has all the appearances of canvassing? —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Happydaze1: do you have a link to the previous talk page discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Because of the possible BLP issues I've removed the same comment over at Talk:Julian Assange. - Aoidh (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Happydaze1 to be clear, we don't resolve WP:content disputes here at ANI, so it's never a good thing for any editor to start arguing about content here. Discussion should be focused on as the header says 'urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems'. You need to resolve your content disputes by discussing them on the talk page. If you find yourself at an impasse, there are ways you can try to get more feedback from other parties (as mentioned at WP:Dispute resolution) but posting messages indiscriminately to a large number of talk pages is definitely not an acceptable way. Since BLP applies everywhere; in any discussion, if you are going to make claims about living persons especially ones likely to be highly contentious, you should provide acceptable sources. Note that as per WP:COUNTERPUNCH, it is considered self published so isn't a suitable source for third party claims about living persons. If the claim is mentioned in one of our article with sources, it may be fine to simply link to that article for discussions. (But not if you are repeating the claim in an article itself.) If the person is not notable, you have to take special care with any claims you make about them, even more if you are going to name them. Saying something has been discussed before but without linking to these previous discussions is not an acceptable way to source the statements you are making. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I just saw the below comment by BBb32 so this is probably pointless but as a final comment to Happydaze1 if something has been discussed "ad nauseam" the most of the time it's pointless bringing it up again. Consensus has already been reached on whether to include the information, or if it's one of the unfortunate cases where we could not reach consensus, it doesn't seem another discussion will help. An exception is when something has substantially changed but in that case you need to explain what has changed. Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Happydaze1.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown Unsupportive and Bully Like Behavior Towards a Fellow Editor

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

I am opening a case in regards to the way I was treated by User:Dennis Brown. Please Visit the Below Link to see what transpired at my request for Article for Creation. This case involves a right granted by User:Stephen and being taken away by User:Dennis Brown.

The behavior displayed showed no regard for me the editor and no regard for Stephen who is also an administrator. Administrators need to undergo training on how to deal with fellow editors it seems me the admin Dennis Brown Main Issue was me getting a right without putting as much work as she did. Akim Ernest (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs are required, otherwise you're just making baseless personal attacks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You created a page about yourself and he removed your autopatrolled. I think that's fair. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unlike the ANI, I found Dennis's responses in the linked AFC request to be quite reasonable and polite. Intothatdarkness 22:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarify: You're upset that you can't create a bio page about yourself? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown made a salient case for why some of the articles you created disqualify you for getting certain privileges. I don't see any bullying behaviour there or when they removed your autopatrolled bit. Also, @Akim Ernest: please be aware of users' genders; you appear to have misgendered Dennis Brown in the comment I am replying to. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

He, she, it, I don't care what you call me. The close of the discussion is at this link. I also commented here, where he was trying to get more bits. I feel like I went out of my way to explain all my actions there. I would also note that he never approached me on my talk page before coming here, although I'm not sweating it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, your behavior says that you are unhappy that another administrator granted me the autopatrolled right. Due to you having to work so had to gain the right. You behave like you are better than everyone else.

Please read Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled before requesting or nominating another user for this right. Applicants are unlikely to be granted this right if they have created fewer than 25 new articles, excluding redirects and disambiguation pages. Note that this right will not help you create or patrol articles.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled - Misplaced Pages

Unlikely does not mean an admin cannot grant such a right. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring the fact that you created an article about yourself. You lost autopatrolled. It doesn't stop you from making new articles, it just means someone else looks at it. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I was given the right after I wrote the article about myself because no occurrence of any issues occurred after this an another article I wrote. Stop belaboring that point, I was treated unjustly by this administrator. Why didn't she consult the admin Stephen who had his reasons for granting the right. So it is clear me that she overrides the entire administrator community. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of editors on here telling you that you were not treated unjustly. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Akim Ernest: There is no guidance at WP:Autopatrolled for revoking the right. However, demonstrating a lack of awareness of WP policies and guidelines listed as autopatrolled does seem a valid reason for revoking the right. Further, DB did request Stephen comment on the matter, but apparently he wasn't around. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It is this kind of behavior and approach that prevents intellectuals from assisting the community. You were very hash. You spoke very condescending towards me. You do not build but break my dear. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Giving the bit isn't a personal decision that an admin does, it is done within guidelines that are consistent with "what would the community as a whole do?". In this case, I was very convinced that the community, had they taken a vote, would opt for you not to have the bit. That is the authority I work under, my best guess of what the community wants. It isn't a personal thing that admin can just decide on their own. I pinged Stephen because he granted the right, but he isn't active right now, so I used my best judgement. I can't say why he granted the bit, but I can say that we normally want to see a dozen (really two dozen) substantial articles created before it is granted, ie: larger than a stub. That isn't my opinion, that is the community's opinion, and my role is simply to put their will into action. As for intellectuals, I'm not sure what to even say to that... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Especially in light of AE's comment above, So it is clear me that overrides the entire administrator community, this administrator will go on record as endorsing removal of their autopatrolled bit. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Stephen was unable to respond to you at the time you took the decision on your own. We must respect that he is an Administrator along side you. You override him therefore you override yourself and any other administrator of this community. Consultation is key. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Admins overriding admins with no consensus. This is similar to warring. This cannot simply be allowed to pass like it's everyday business. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, having read that exchange, I'm entirely at a loss. Akim Ernest, what policies do you claim that Dennis violated here? Please do understand that it is not a violation of any rule for an admin to simply not do what you want, or let you keep a privilege that you've shown yourself unable to justify having. Ravenswing 22:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• You say here, "I would love to keep the bit but such a decision is not up to me", but when said decision happens to be one with which you disagree, your response is a meritless behavioral accusation. Is there actually a policy-based reason that this warrants an ANI thread? --Kinu /_c 22:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  You can't take what you have not given. Especially without consultation with Stephen. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Of course you can, we do it all the time. In obvious cases, no consultation is required, although I tried. I think part of the reason there is a misunderstanding is that Akim Ernest doesn't understand how admins works. We are not bosses, we don't just do what we want, we aren't cowboys. We are simply editors like you, but we have a few extra tools that we can use. We don't "own" our actions, they are done for the benefit of the community, and by the authority of the community, answerable to the community. The community can overturn any and all admin actions. If an admin makes a mistake (we all do), then either the community or another admin can fix it. It happens every day. In your case, you absolutely did not qualify for the bit. I'm guessing it was an innocent mistake by Stephen, so I changed it to what the community supports. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  My question is where was the teamwork? Why didn't you allow some time to pass to receive a response? This can make Stephen look like he his doing a bad job. You are still saying I did not qualify it means you do not think he is worthy as an admin.

  Please read Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled before requesting or nominating another user for this right. Applicants are unlikely to be granted this right if they have created fewer than 25 new articles, excluding redirects and disambiguation pages. Note that this right will not help you create or patrol articles.

  Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled - Misplaced Pages

  There is word stated on the patrol page called "Unlikely" and he took the Unlikely decision to make me autopatrolled. He gave me the right and you should give it back to me and converse with Stephen. I will consider the decision after consultation with Stephen. Akim Ernest (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  "This can make Stephen look like he his doing a bad job. You are still saying I did not qualify it means you do think he is worthy as an admin."

  Stop, now. You're casting aspersions on DB's views of Stephen's administrator abilities, and that is not a path you should pursue. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, that's not how this works. Any administrator can (and should) perform any administrative action at any time as long as they are acting in good faith for the best interest of the encyclopedia. I can't speak to why you were originally granted the autopatrolled permission, but I believe its removal by Dennis Brown satisfies the criteria in the previous sentence (for the record, "endorse"), and your baseless claim of bullying does nothing to suggest otherwise. --Kinu /_c 22:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend this case be closed. Dennis has done no wrong & certainly is not a bully. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Case Shall Not Be Closed. Due to no response from another admin this case involves. Akim Ernest (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You aren't the sole arbiter of what can be done here, and you're wrong. Two additional admins have weighed in, as has Dennis. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Admins Can you please provide me the steps to bring this to the higher Stewarts and Bureaucracy boards.? Akim Ernest (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The committee is bigger than two admins. Akim Ernest (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Stewards and Bureaucrats do NOT outrank admin. It doesn't work that way. The highest authority is the community, and you are in the middle of it now. Admin don't outrank editors. Again, we just have the tools. You really do not understand how this place works, which reinforces my initial skepticism. Go ahead and leave this open, no reason to close it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe you don't understand how it works, it is community yet in a matter of a few minutes you took away the right instead of saying "this is not causing any harm I shall wait for my fellow admin brother" I will not respect this decision. Akim Ernest (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this might have strayed into a competency question in terms of the person filing the ANI...certainly not competency on the part of any admin. Intothatdarkness 23:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

user:HHH Pedrigree

Reporting personal attacks by User:HHH Pedrigree to both myself and User:SkylerLovefist in this discussion:.

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Partnerships and working relationships between companies: How explicit should sourcing be?

I'd like to point out these 2 sections:

12:45, August 8, 2022 - where he said to me "If you are dumb enough to not understand this, it's not my problem. If you and your sidekick don't like the way Misplaced Pages works, leave"

And here:

16:15, August 8, 2022 - where he said to Skyler "I expected not less from VJ's sidekick. Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your accusations against myself and other users are near perecturion mania. I recommend to see an specialist."

If those aren't straight up personal attacks, I don't know what are.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What were the accusations against other users that it is alleged Skyler made? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they meant that HHH was attacking both OP and Skyler. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

HHH was referring to Skyler bringing up WP:Own in describing HHH's behavior within the discussion, and HHH responded saying Skyler had a "persecution complex" Vjmlhds 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Vjmlhds I warned you on your talk page but will do so here as you haven't responded. You must sign your edits appropriately, which means your signature needs a link to your talk or userpage. You can sign by using four tildes: ~~~~. Please start doing this, as it makes it impossible to respond easily. Given you have more than 60k edits, this should not be news to you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

My fault - I'm still trying to figure out this new "reply" feature and something keeps getting lost in translation...to make everyone's life easier, I'll just go back to the tried and true way of responding. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the reply function, when you edit, just sign with 4 tildes if you're editing manually. Reply link will automatically use your signature, so it's clearly user error, not site error. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Could well have been my screw up trying to figure the new feature out...as I said, I'll just go back to old reliable so as not to have any more issues. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, VJ, Skyler and myself had another discussion. You can see it in the Impact roster talk page "Regarding Certain Editing" or "What good sourcing looks like". Another user and me tried to explain them how to source information, avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Ater several years, VJ shows that he doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works (using Twitter or pictures as source, for him sourcing it's just optional) and phrases like " Consensus certainly CAN overrule any guidelines (that is what they are, not rules - words mean things) " (talking about using sources, so he think if two users agree, he can include unsourced material because he has consensus). So, there is another discussion where they make the same thing, WP:SYNTH. Despite repeating the rules over and over, they don't listenn. About Skyler, read the Impact talk page and see how many accusations made against me and the other user. Everytime he is reverted, claims we are against him, we have a personal vendetta against him and we wp:own him. It's not normal to ask him to understand a policy and he says "you're against me, this is WP:OWN". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, from the pro wrestling project, there are some arguments from Skyler "We don't need to get your approval every time we edit. There is no "WP: HHHPedrigree Must Be Happy With Your Edit." There is no "WP: Your Sources Must Be Worded A Particular Way Or HHHPedrigree Gets To Revert Your Edit." It's clear to anyone not trying to edit for ego purposes the two companies are working together." Again, he think like the world has a vendetta or something. At one point, he doesn't talk and starts complaining and accusing other users of WP:OWN. My personal opinion, if they have problems using sources and get upset when other user removes their editions because break the rules, leave Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has rules and they doesn't like them. If you are in a club, you follow the rules, not complain every time you break them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You display WP:OWN behaviour all the time, HHHPedrigree which is where both disputes started. We're discussing your behaviour, not mine. SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The admins asked for the acusations you made against me. I don't WP:OWN anything. I have the Impact roster in my watchlist. If I see unsourced editions, I remove them. If that's WP:OWN for you or think it's a personal revenge, it's not my fault, but it's not. Which it's not normal is every discussion, acussing other users of WP:OWN for every coment they made. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue here isn't an article dispute, but the content of your talk page comments above. Calling editors dumb and recommending them to see a mental health specialist isn't helpful to any conversation. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The content it's not, but they behavior it not good. Everytime they make an edition with WP:OR and it's removed, both of them respond against me. Skyler spent days accusing me of WP:OWN and a vendetta against him. At this point, it feels like he has a vendetta against me. It's not normal to say "you should read wp:or" and the answer "you're a gatekeeper, I don't have to meet your standars. You are WP:OWN me". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I explained several times to VJ why his editions fail into WP:SYNTH. (he says two companies have a partnership, I said the sources he used don't mention any partnership, so he is making assumptions. He said he is a fan and I must watch the TV show) After several attempts, he refused to understand a basic policy like that... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile you seem to be failing to understand we're discussing you and your conduct. Nobody is discussing the discussion which wouldn't have happened without the usual WP:OWN behaviour going on, we're discussing *your* behaviour. SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Another accusation against me . Removing unsourced material = WP:own. That's the usual for Skyler, if he doesn't like your edition, you are wp:own. Yo be honest, I'm tired of you accusing me every time we talk. You are never civil with these discussions and start throwing accusations against every user doesn't think like you. My comments were made in a context where VJ and you bullied me. No arguments, just acusations HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, HHHPedrigree: the issue being discussed here is you being uncivil. Not my edits, not me stating your behaviour is WP:OWN. You insulting VJ, you demanding people donthhings your way or leave and insulting other users. Understand? SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree, this is a warning from an administrator: If you ever call another editor "dumb" again, or say that they have a mental illness and need to see a specialist, you will be blocked for a very long time. That's harassment and it is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the issue does come from the fact HHH comes across like he is the grand gatekeeper of Misplaced Pages, that he is smarter than anyone else when it comes to Wiki policy, and feels the need to lecture us. When Skyler brings up WP:Own, that stems from the vibe HHH gives off that he is the boss, and how dare we disagree with him. He throws out WP:This and WP:That like he is the great expert, when in reality a lot of policies (like OR and SYNTH) leave room for interpretation, which is why we have discussions to let consensus figure it out and go from there. But if it doesn't go HHH's way or people disagree with him, he goes after them. Any time he gets pushback, he lashes out, and in this case wound up calling me dumb and saying Skyler needs a specialist. For someone who sees himself as an expert on Wiki policy and is so strident on following everything to the letter, he ought to know what WP:Personal entails. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There's also the inability to understand consensus and a lack of willing to work with others. Rather than work with the majority, he will do as he has done here, continue arguing in circles rather than accept what has been said. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, another attack. This is not a gatekeeper feeling or a I'm hollier that you attitude, as you said. I have plenty of articles in my watchlist, Impact roster is one of them. Misplaced Pages has rules and, several times, you include bad sourcing (including Twitter and pictures) or WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, that's why I remove that editions. Because it's against the rules of the website, not my rules. Everytime I explained, you don't listen. Also, I have explained several times WP:CONSENSUS is not defined per vote (VJ is always "we are 2-1") and can't override WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case. You've had it explained to you multiple times and you still refuse to understand it and show the grace to understand what you've done wrong. The issue is your behaviour. Not ours, not the admin who warned you to improve your behaviour, not the other user who told you you need to pack it in, YOURS. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I was warned, but you keep insisting. The issue was I insulted you, not my attitude removing unsourced material. Again, you refuse to understand what's wrong with your editions and choose to attack other users. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop trying to project at others, HHHPedrigree. Yet again, your behaviour is the problem. You're an adult, please behave like one. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

again, what behavior? You include unsourced information, I remove it and you complain I wp:own you,that I'm a gatekeeper and everything is about my standard. Then, you include the unsourced information again, so I remove it again because stills unsourced. I just follow Misplaced Pages rules, rules that says everything must be sources, but you think it's my invention or my standard. At this point, this feels like harassment from you to me. You are accusing me of bad behavior just because I remove your editions, even if I explained several times your editions falls into WP:OR. Insetad, you keep including the same edition even if me and other users told you the edition is going against policies. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What behavior?!? The whole reason we are hear is because you flat out called me dumb, and told Skyler to "go see a specialist". 2 straight up violations of WP:Personal. Yet you persist on all the stuff about OR and SYNTH. It really is coming across like you think it's OK for you to insult people and talk down to them because - in your mind - you are standing up for truth, justice, and the Misplaced Pages way. This is what is meant by the "Gatekeeper" attitude...you have articles on your watchlist, and you don't actively work on the article yourself, but when you see someone else do something, then you swoop in to play judge, jury and executioner, preaching the Wiki gospel, and when you get pushback, you turn it up to 11 and let fly with the insults. And to be clear, I did include sources, but you didn't feel they were adequate enough (i.e. not up to your standards), so to say "I don't include sources" is misleading at best and a lie at worst to justify the drama. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

My persistent on all stuff about OR and SYNTH? That's because your editions fall into OR and SYNTH. The article is in my watchlist, if I see some user (Skyler, VJ or anyother) includes material that is unsourced or it's OR/SYNTH, I remove it since there is no place for such thing in Wikpedia. Then, you accused me of gatekeeping. No, that's something a good wikipedia user will do: remove unsourced content. Your edition was ""AAW has a partnership with Impact". I said "your sources doesn't mention a partnership, so it's WP:SYNTH". Not my standard, but Misplaced Pages guidelines. If the source doesn't mention a partnership, you are taking conclusions from it, which is WP:SYNTH. If you find a source stating "Impact started a partnership with AAW", no problem, it support your claim, but it's not. You used two sources that doesn't mention any partnership and asked me to assume that there is one, wich is against the rules. Then, you accuse me of gatekeeping. The point is the edition violates a wikipedia rule and you refuse to see it. You complain when other users remove your editions, but just because several of your editions break the rules. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

My honest recommendation to all of you is that you all knock it off, all three of you. Going around and around in this ANI arguing with each other, isn't helping. Put the stick down and walk away. Take a break from interacting with each other, because based off what I can see in this ANI, no one is being very civil. An administrator has addressed HHH Pedigree's comments, that is what this ANI was about, and now all three of you seem determined to take this to sanctions by continuing to argue and go after each other on the ANI. Just walk away. Please. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue at hand was addressed by Cullen, so I can live with that. Not only am I putting the stick down, I am putting it through a wood chipper. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Bedford

• Bedford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator look at User:Bedford? They have a few Neo-Confederate userboxes on their userpage.

Here is one example: User:Bedford/userboxes/User Confederate TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Woah, according to this list, Bedford is a former administrator. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User has only made 10 edits since 2016 and half of those were responding to someone posting something on their talk page. If we ignore them, they'll go away on their own.--v/r - TP 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

unfortunately the tone of their responses at MfD doesn't indicate any such likelihood. Definitely does not inspire collaborative efforts. Star Mississippi 02:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A former admin who was removed for cause by Jimbo Wales 14(!) years ago. --Rockstone 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this user is a concern as of now. They've made few edits in recent years, and from their user page it appears they once had a somewhat distinguished career (They are a Senior Editor II and have multiple barnstars). I just think we should keep an eye on them for any signs of future disruptive editing. No action needs to be taken. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

a username that could be read as problematic with obnoxious, offensive userboxes that they're calling @Dronebogus "childish" for nominating. Multiple barnstars and being a "Senior Editor II" are frankly irrelevant. Star Mississippi 02:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that barnstars and editor awards are completely irrelevant, the fact that they haven't really edited in years, except to defend these UBXs that have no chance of survival it appears, absolutely is relevant. I'm not sure what the desired outcome here is. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything we can do, but I was instead making clear that we don't really need to look for future disruption. It's already here and hiding in plain sight. Star Mississippi 02:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

To say the name "could be KKK inspired" is an uncalled for stretch. My personal first name (that I haven't disclosed) happens to be shared with a confederate general, but that doesn't make my name KKK inpired. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 02:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that his authored images state Bedford is part of his legal name. I'd recommend a retraction of the allegation of the KKK inspired name. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your AGF is stronger than mine, but I have rephrased. If there's specific syntax for a redaction, please consider this my permission to edit my comment as I'm about to log off. Star Mississippi 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that Bedford also displays this userbox on their userpage, which has a fascist symbol. Thank Dronebogus for noticing and nominating that for deletion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bedford was desysopped by Jimmy Wales in 2008 after a similar debate. I think that was the last active intervention by Jimmy in enwiki management. I don't think much has changed since then with Bedford, but he hasn't terribly active since then either. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef Bedford There is no place on Misplaced Pages for sympathizers with racism and fascism. This user is clearly NOTHERE, and their recent edits show it. For example, editing in support of the "war of northern aggression" myth , and responding to deletion requests with personal attacks. Consider KEEP I want to have a warning before someone who clearly needs to compensate for certain..deficiencies...tries to delete all my hard work. I don't follow commons, so I have no warning. Please get a life, and stop spamming my emails with all your silly deletion requests . Not to mention today's repeated personal attacks at one of the MfDs regarding their racist userboxes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Recent edits? Aren't those from like 2014 and 2015? Andre🚐 03:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  it's a pattern of editing going back a decade+. We don't need to wait another year for their inevitable disruption by way of tirades and outward racism. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's not a "pattern of editing going back a decade." It's some edits FROM a decade ago. To suggest that someone with ten mainspace edits over the last eight years is going to "inevitably" disrupt anything is little short of hysteria. Ravenswing 03:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Considering these are all within their last 50 edits, yes, I believe "recent" is appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am in no way defending this user or their edits, but I don't think you can be judgedindeffed for something from 7 years ago. And I agree his messages are uncooperative. I have 0 sympathy for his views, but I can't agree that these are "recent," that's misleading at best. Andre🚐 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have you actually looked at their diffs in the MFD, from today? PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have you actually looked at their diffs in the MFD, from today? PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I saw the term "childish" and repeated some kind of counterfactual confederate troll b.s. Yeah it's offensive, so delete his userboxes and he'll probably go away again. Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punitive. We don't have to tolerate him if he starts making bad edits. It looks like he hasn't even edited in years. As someone with zero love for racism or fascism of any stripe, I don't see the argument. Delete his personal attacks and racist content, and if he persists in re-adding them, then a block might be merited. Not if he's just sitting there for years doing nothing. Andre🚐 03:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The editor was on those MfDs within 3 hours of them being posted. I'm not sure where the inactivity argument comes from, a 3 hour response time to an MfD doesn't indicate inactivity to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Huh? But before that the editor had no other edits for ages? They undoubtedly got an email of the talk page notification. Andre🚐 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If that is the case, his immediate response to a talk page notification was to immediately accuse editors of ignorance and childishness. I still don't see how that is a reason to NOT indef him. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• indef I'm with TAOT. Misplaced Pages has no room for people who openly support racism (and whos response to any criticism is "Get a life", something Bedford has said often.) Not to mention Misplaced Pages is very much not the place for revisionist history, nor can we trust an editor who is so wildly out of touch with facts and reality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef Support indef, per these three diffs, clearly WP:NOTHERE. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Indef, hopefully it's not an unpopular opinion that neo-confederates shouldn't be Misplaced Pages editors. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef - If he's not edit-warring, vandalising pages or pushing a political PoV on pages? then don't ban. Merely remove the userbox-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• No ban/block at this time per my comments above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly warn and issue civility warnings to the user. Andre🚐 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would support a warning as described by Andrevan Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef: I take a back seat to no one in my disgust at this fellow's politics. But Andre is entirely right. This guy isn't an active editor. It's been a decade since he has been. This is a bunch of outrage for the sake of outrage. Absolutely, delete his offensive infoboxes (the MfDs of which are well on their way), but indeffing him for no better reason than he's a cheap and convenient target -- and made some objectionable edits many years ago -- plays rather dramatically into the hands of those who just love to paint Misplaced Pages as the haunt of extremist and intolerant liberals. The easiest way to avoid being smeared as a kneejerk lynch mob is not to be one. Ravenswing 03:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  An indef is preventative. It prevents further disruption from this user, which is all that leaving him free to edit will accomplish. He has no intention of building an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  He has no intention of EDITING this encyclopedia ... as plainly witnessed by the plain fact that he hasn't been doing so. This isn't merely an exercise in bullying, it's a pretty dern pointless one. I want a far, far better reason to indef someone than to pound my chest as I gaze into the mirror and chortle "Hah, I got another red state bastard!" Ravenswing 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose User is retired and not in the public WP consciousness, and the only reason it has re-entered public consciousness is because people decided to rustle through said user's userpage and the user has jousted a bit in the subsequent MFD. If the purpose actually was to not advertise the user's political beliefs, it would be obvious what the appropriate tactical/strategic course of action would be Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef - This is exactly what WP:NONAZIS is about. --MuZemike 04:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Blank the userpage, delete associated userboxen, and remove the polemic material - otherwise do not block. The polemic shit can and should be deleted, but as they're hardly editing I don't see any real point to 86'ing them at this juncture. Now, mind you, if he decides to reinsert it, then by all means put the vengeful gaze of $deity on them, but I'd rather not block a user who's hardly editing anyway for an indef without trying lesser measures first to address any disruption, and it seems to me the easiest route is to blank off the offending material. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 04:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with blank+delete+remove Andre🚐 04:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Lectonar (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• weak support for indef he’s retired from productive editing and now only wants to be an uncivil nuisance to anyone “triggered” by his extremely offensive userboxes. Also, his last edit before the UBX nominations was calling an LGBT-related invite “garbage”, so add likely homophobia to list of project-incompatible beliefs. Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now, but could lean towards indef depending on their behavior with regards to the MfD discussions. Otherwise, basically the action Jeske outlined above. User is inactive so an indef would be strictly punitive, not preventative. If they step out of line (if they come back) after this, then yeah nuke 'em, but it's a non-issue at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block at this time. Blocks are to stop disruption of the encyclopedia. We should not carry out ideological purges. This editor has made only 18 edits in the last seven years, but they made 13,347 edits in 2008. This editor may hold views that most of us (including me) consider reprehensible, but they are not disrupting the encyclopedia at this time. They are effectively retired. If they start actively disrupting the encyclopedia, then I would definitely support an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block, essentially per Cullen328. Problematic userboxes can be deleted by consensus (and I see a couple of discussions are happening on those lines). But if Bedford is not editing to push his political views, and is not harming or disrupting the encyclopedia, there's nothing that we need a block to prevent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Ravenswing said it well too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support community ban from the project, after having seen his odious Facebook utterances. (And yes, I know that's off-wiki, but it shows he's such a repulsive individual that he needs to be shown the door.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328 and GoodDay. — Czello 08:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• First of all, we should just ban issues-based userboxen already. Secondly, I agree with Cullen and particularly Curbon7. If Bedford decides to continue spending his time insulting people who take exception to his support for an organization devoted to upholding the enslavement of Black people as chattel, then I imagine someone will quietly indef as NOTHERE and that will be that. (And I'm fine with being that someone.) But he's not (yet) at such a level of disruption to warrant that. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 10:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

My eyes got a workout for all the rolling. You have an obvious user just wanting to find reasons to be offended, and instead of telling him to cool it you are going after me. The userboxes in question are at least 14 years old so obviously there has been no issue until someone desperately needed them to be one. The people wanting to think I'm fascist are the ones who act the most like them as they are the ones who can't handle anyone who disagrees with them. I saw someone complain about another userbox I had which I did not create, but I assume that icon was not there originally there as I do not remember that icon. Yes, I was an admin before it was removed because I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive. This is just a witchhunt that rewards those who are looking for reasons to be offended. You already damaged WP by chasing productive users like me away; do you really want to keep the process going?--King Bedford I 10:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Bedford: So, I know this is reaching back a decade, but it's the sort of statement that, no matter how long ago it was made, is concerning, and I don't see that it was addressed at the time: Do you stand by this comment saying that you wished to "recommend to Dr. Kevorkian's successor" —i.e. that Jimbo Wales should kill himself? -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 11:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That easily should’ve been ban material right there Dronebogus (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef Bedford, regardless of their past merits and recent level of activity, and according to these three diffs, this homophobic remark, as well as WP:NONAZIS and WP:NOTHERE. But, above all – there should be no place for neo-Confederates on Misplaced Pages. —Sundostund (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sundostund, describing this diff as "this homophobic remark", is stretching it too much. It is a removal of a massposted message. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  חוקרת, there is nothing wrong in a removal of a massposted message. The issue is about describing that LGBT–themed message as a "garbage" in the edit summary. —Sundostund (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  A massposted message. You could see it in the way you frame it, but it can also be seen otherwise. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I certainly see it in that way. At the same time, I am letting other users to make their own conclusions about it. —Sundostund (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Taken in context it’s very likely homophobic Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If Bedford took onus with all auto-posted messages, I could see giving a pass. There are hundreds of such automated messages on Bedford's talk, and he hasn't removed them. He was invited to a different Wiki event in Indy he felt no need to delete, just a month later. Certainly indicates a problem with THE message, not A message.

  With that said, I don't see that being a cause to indef, there appear to be much better reasons than potential homophobia. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Deleting unsolicited messages on a user's talk page is now evidence of "homophobia"? If that's the definition we're using, we're going to need to get a lot more banhammers... Buffs (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Like I said, if he took onus with all of them, I'd see it being a pass. But his talk page suggests he only took onus with the pride invite. Which, as I said, I don't think is enough to block him for anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  So he only took issue with the Pride invite. Maybe he thinks that open sexual displays of any kind are inappropriate (which is what many/most of these festivals either entail or endorse). If you post an unsolicited invite to my talk page regarding sexual topics, I'm going to delete as well. That isn't homophobic...sexually conservative, to be sure, but hardly homophobic. Buffs (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The level of WP:AGF required here is beyond the standard of reasonable doubt. He thinks trans people are worthy of mockery because he thinks they’re ugly, not because of his “sexually conservative” values. Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that there's a very thin line between claiming to be “sexually conservative” and defending homophobia; various claims of "conservative” values often are bywords for something much sinister. Also, his stance on trans people is just deplorable. —Sundostund (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Buffs: it seems very hard to me to reconcile "sexually conservative" with the DYK Bedford proposed then got desysoped over after they wheel warred to try and keep it on the main page, talked about feminazis who were jealous of attractive women etc; and then followed up after their de-sysop with repeatedly saying they were gangraped. Unless you mean they're opposed to it when it involves gay people but are fine with it otherwise, in which case that is indeed homophobic. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Guys thats socially conservative... Sexually conservative is when you believe that coitus is the central element of sexuality which does overlap with social conservatism but unless any of you have been to bed with Bedford or have a source which says he isn't into oral, manual, anal, or kinky non-coitus based sex you need to say socially conservative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sex sells. Las Vegas is based on that. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it will grab attention. Likewise, it was also factual and had community approval, so it should have stood rather than be unilaterally removed (unless I'm misunderstanding the situation...if he was undoing multiple Admins after a WP:AN discussion, that's different). We've done PLENTY of front page things that were designed to grab headlines/attention and I don't see anything wrong with this particular selection. I've seen nothing about "gangraped" at all. If so, that's indeed abhorrent (links would be appreciated). I think that his choice of actions was inappropriate (wheel warring) as were his choice of words to describe why he was demoted (wheel warring and name calling). From what I can see, I think those who took it down were also in the wrong when they unilaterally took it down as it was an agreed-upon DYK. I can't say Jimbo was wrong as he, at the time, had the power to revoke such access unilaterally and at his own discretion. I don't think it was wise and he should have let the community handle it (they would likely have rapidly come to the same conclusion), but that's really not a matter of discussion here.

  As for the Gay Pride parade, I'm personally opposed to such promiscuous/prominent sexual behavior of all kinds. This would include such open displays of sex, the sort that are prominent at gay pride parades, free love festivals, public displays of sex positivity, and a number of other sex exhibits that are available in public locations. It doesn't matter to me if it is heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, or any flavor of LGBTQPIA+!? That sort of behavior should be reserved for non-public settings and I'm not a fan of them...ALL of them. That said, I also completely support it being legal and they should be free to do it! Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal. Public expression is free speech in America and, though I disagree with them, I will fight to the death for their right to do so.

  You want to define that as socially conservative? Fine. "Conservative with sexual matters". Anything else? Fine. It all means the same thing that I clearly intended and described.

  Lastly, please don't mistake my support for process/procedure for complete support of his actions. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Did you really just claim that Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Indianapolis/Wiki_Loves_Pride_2022 will "include open displays of sex" ? You think sex is going to happen in the IUPUI University Library's Ashby Browsing Room? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The editathon focused on improving articles ABOUT those events. Art + Feminism was also a sponsor of the event, a decidedly leftist organization. My entire point is that he didn't want to participate and thought it was "garbage". Equating that with "HOMOPHOBIA!!!!" is just people jumping to conclusions. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Buffs: You do know that the "A" in LGBTQPIA+!? stands for Asexual, right? Do you know how silly it sounds for you to suggest a pride event which includes asexuals (which, oh hey, that includes me) would involve open displays of sex? With that kind of description, I really don't think you really seem to understand what a pride parade actually.. is?
  That's also just straight up ignoring the fact that this was an advertisement for an editathon. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 06:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh lordy...we're really going to go down that road? Perhaps I meant "A" for "Ally" or "Androgeny" or...

  This right here is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. I'm trying to be inclusive and the only thing you can focus on is how I allegedly (OOH! Maybe it was "Allegedly"!) got a single letter "wrong". And because I did, that somehow "proves" I don't understand what pride a pride parade is (likewise, the editathon focused on editing such articles on those topics, ergo, they are involved).

  If you think that proves I'm not "woke" enough, you're going to take anything/everything I say the way you want to interpret it. You are going to see what you want to see and discard the rest. A discussion with you beyond this is pointless. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef as the nomination of an indef on the basis of (what seems to be primarily) ideology smacks a bit of 'user has incorrect opinions.' I've seen WP:NONAZIS brought up above but there is a reason that NONAZIS is an essay, not a policy. I understand that this nomination is said to also be on the grounds of disruption, but I find the evidence for this is fairly weak. A warning about attitude may be in order, but an indef is disproportionate. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• I haven’t heard the name 'User:Bedford' for a long time, I remember when he was, I think, the last admin to be desysoped by Jimbo using his Godlike powers back in the day. Bedford has contributed very little for so long - a de facto retirement, I guess - that it shouldn’t be any big deal to him whether the user boxes go. I suggest he be left to return to his 'retirement'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef - Indef blocks are intended to stop imminent and ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, not to express our collective outrage or to tear down Confederate statues and monuments.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  He’s disrupting Misplaced Pages right now, every single recent comment is basically just trolling to “own the libs”, which is plainly WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Bedford isn't editing, hadn't really edited this year until replying to the userbox deletion nominations. Indeffing will achieve nothing positive, and would be seen as by Bedford as a "badge of honor". The userboxes themselves will be gone soon. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Mr. Crenshaw, as evidenced by the contents of his userpage and the social media accounts linked therefrom, is not the least bit coy about his political opinions and seems to have held them for years without much deviation. If he continues to let this account lie dormant after this episode, he will be swiftly re-forgotten. If he doesn't, he will get himself banned, and then re-forgotten. Same difference. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive weren't you desysopped by Jimbo for your misogyny too? And yet here you are, 14 years later still doing the same shit. If that isn't a pattern, I don't know what is. This community's absolute unwillingness to deal with homophobia, misogyny and racism is actually astounding. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Misplaced Pages does not sanction for thoughtcrimes. Sanctions are reserved for actions that are counter to collaborative participation. The last thing we need to be doing is sanctioning someone for simply have a minority point of view, no matter how offensive someone might find it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NONAZIS begs to differ. Allowing rampant misogyny like I've pointed out, along with racism and homophobia are more than just "minority opinions." They're toxic and violent ideologies that don't belong on an encyclopedia and are inherently at odds with building an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is an essay that doesn't enjoy wide spread acceptance. There is a HUGE difference in someone claiming they want to preserve parts of their heritage that aren't about racism, and someone saying "Hitler was right". I'm not saying I agree with him, but currently, as he has presented the information, it isn't breaking any policy. We don't block people just because we disagree with them. It is a dangerous precedent to start blocking people for ideas rather than actions, and it isn't supported in policy. We block for actions, not thoughts. If he comes back and spews racist ideas, I would be the first to block him, but no one has presented proof he has, ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually it does, you can run a quarry for yourself to see the numerous WP:NONAZI blocks. Confederecy isn't "heritage" - that's bullshit fed to kids about the lie that is the "War of Northern Aggression" and it appears this conspiracy theory has even reached the depths of Misplaced Pages editors. So is racism where your blocking ability ends? The blatant misogyny isn't enough? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nevermind the fact that his ardent defense of the confederacy here and elsewhere is at odds with actual proven fact, but I guess that also doesn't matter for Misplaced Pages? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Where exactly is his "ardent defense of the confederacy"? Buffs (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NONAZIS is not a policy, just someone's essay. And I'm not even convinced Bedford can be called a Nazi. — Czello 13:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with Dennis Brown's assessment. — Czello 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW - Who goes around or would want to go around, checking over other editors' userpages to find something offensive? There must be better ways, to spend ones' time. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue that extends to someone who comments on every single ANI thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy that I'm not one of those who comments on every single ANI thread. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef So what if Bedford isn't actively contributing to mainspace anymore? If he was, then I'd say that might actually be a reason against indef since it would show he's capable of productively contributing to the project. Since he isn't doing that... Why give this guy a platform? What is there to gain with keeping someone like Bedford around?
  The community made a mistake by not kicking Bedford out a decade ago. It's time we correct for that. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block - unless and until somebody can demonstrate that the user has been putting the level of horseshit on his userpage into articles or talk pages (and yes it is 100% horseshit, believing idea that the Confederacy wasnt racist is IMO prima facie evidence that one lacks the competence to edit anything related to the American Civil War, modern race relations, or nearly anything about America and its history). There are lots of editors I think are racist, or homophobic, or anti-whatever. Until their editing shows that however that is a personal opinion of mine that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Also, a bit shocked how he had these userbox when he ran for a successful RFA and they werent even mentioned. What a time 2008 was, maybe I could have been an admin after all. nableezy - 16:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well this is going back a ways, but this certainly raises the eyebrows. An editor placing in the mainspace that it was the War of Northern Aggression and that the Civil War is non-neutral is so close to a KKK talking point that I seriously wonder where WP:NONAZIS comes in to play. Even if it was 14 years ago, would support a wide ranging topic ban on anything related to the Civil War or modern US politics. Including any revert on his userpage of anything removed of it. nableezy - 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The "War of Northern Aggression" is a common phrase in the South. Equating that with support for the KKK is a HUGE step too far. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Putting in the mainspace text referring to the Civil War as the title "the War of Northern Aggression" and claiming the term "Civil War" (a completely anodyne phrase that means a war between opposing forces in the same country) is POV is very clearly pushing KKK level bullshit in encyclopedia articles. If you cant see that then I question your ability to edit anything related to American politics, past or present, too. nableezy - 21:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  This quality of argumentation is pretty standard for Buffs, see e.g. . JBL (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Valid question whether he or GoodDay are adding anything beyond bytes to this discussion. Star Mississippi 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Well in GoodDay's case it's a chronic problem; my request nine months ago didn't help, but perhaps a polite word from an administrator? --JBL (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  GoodDay and Buffs are playing devil’s advocate for the sake of the argument. Even the non-CBAN/block voters aren’t exactly on Bedford’s side. Dronebogus (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  JBL, you're already following my every movement after you've been asked to stop harassing me. I could argue that your continued actions and disparaging remarks are a (continued) violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS. I have 2 instances of discussions you joined in the last 24 hours ONLY because I was in there first. Kindly back off. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Listen I know you like to fantasize about me but even so you're already following my every movement is a little over the top for a public forum like this, don't you think? JBL (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I do not use that terminology, however, it is in common use in the South. It's hardly "KKK-level bullshit". I see no evidence he said "Civil War" is POV pushing and, in fact, he uses/used it on his user page. Seems more than a little contradictory. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support community ban, very clearly NOTHERE. nableezy - 19:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef at the current time, I see no indication that they're going to significantly participate in WP in the future so this feels more punitive than preventative. I must admit this is a bit of an odd (some could perhaps righty say wikilawyer-like) position but if they do choose to come back in a substantive sense I'd support an immediate indef. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why the idea is "Let an editor who only pops in to cause problems stay around". The years of inactivity, but then immediate activity (within 3 1/2 hours to remove a pride invitation, within 3 hours to dispute the MfDs) doesn't suggest he's that far gone, and the fact that his comments since the MfDs started have been to call people childish and ignorant, and advocating no one take Wiki seriously as a result of the MfDs doesn't support the idea of keeping him around. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I was going to sit this one out, on the grounds that someone who edits so infrequently can be causing very little disruption. However, Bedford's own post above has persuaded me to comment. His contributions over the few years have been a handful of gnomish mainspace edits, an edit to their user talk page with what an edit summary that sure as hell looks like homophobia, some insulting comments at MfD, and a post here which is both misogynistic and dismissive of people's concerns: I view that as a net negative. As such, I would weakly support an indef block, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter unless he becomes active again. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• With respect to the thoughtful comments above, I have blocked Bedford indefinitely. As I noted on their talk page, they not only admit that they're not here to build an encyclopedia, but they also maintain views which are inherently incompatible with being a member of the community. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Although I did not support the block above, I will endorse this action now as a valid closure of this discussion. Andre🚐 17:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to challenge this, but I think it would have been best for the community to decide whether or not Bedford should be blocked rather than you exclusively. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 17:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  As someone who supported the block, I agree with this. I would support removing the block until consensus can be reached. This is a WP:CBAN discussion, and the community hasn't truly come to a consensus yet. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Indef I agree with MJL that the years of inactivity actually cut towards an indef rather than against. If he'd been usefully contributing to Misplaced Pages recently then whether to indef him for defending a bunch of racist userboxes would be a complicated issue. But he hasn't, so it's not. Loki (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Indef Per Praxidicase. A firm no to bending over backwards for accomodating racists. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ravenswing, Cullen328, and GoodDay. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) has indef'd Bedford for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Is this any better/worse than a Hezbollah userbox? Sir Joseph 17:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to run that one back again, complete with misrepresentation of it being a "Hezbollah userbox". nableezy - 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If it’s not a Hezbollah box then why is it just coincidentally green and yellow? Dronebogus (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Can read the aforementioned MFD if youd like. The userbox is about Misplaced Pages, but again if youd like to raise it in a place where it isnt off-topic whataboutism then feel free. nableezy - 00:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:CBAN, discussions MUST be kept open 24 hours before sanctions are applied. For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. This discussion was open less than 24 hours, there is no clear consensus, and a block has been applied. I ask for the block to be removed and the discussion to continue, the block was clearly premature. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree this thread has not reached a consensus on a community ban, nor reached the required timeframe. My block was based on the reasoning I left on the user's talk page, much as I'd have blocked the user if I found these edits while recent change patrolling. Discussion can (and should!) continue here, and the block can be upgraded to a ban should consensus arise. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  You said "With respect to the thoughtful comments above I have blocked Bedford indefinitely", meaning you are taking this ANI as the reason for the block. You listed this discussion as "With respect to" as for a reason for the block. It appears you imposed the block to enforce a CBAN, which has not taken effect through consensus yet. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think she meant that while respectfully noting the opposition above, TNT made, as an independent action by an uninvolved admin, a normal indef-block that is not a community ban and one that any admin can make if they think it necessary. And if there is consensus to unblock then Im sure she will abide by that, but as of right now theres a normal admin block and no CBAN. nableezy - 18:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Listing this ANI as the reason for the block sure as heck makes it look like it's a CBAN. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

See below — I did not list this thread as the reason for the block. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Many blocks happen as a result of ANI, near immediately, with ANI cited in the block reason and are not CBANS. No one has proposed a CBAN either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No one has proposed a CBAN? So we're discussing (voting, debating, trying to garner consensus in the commmunity) whether or not to indef him as a matter of routine discussion? Formal or not, this is a CBAN discussion. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Commas are important, no? I meant that I respect the thoughtful comments here, but that my block was for the reasons I left on the user's talk page. In that message, I again give due respect to the community process, but enact a block for the reasons given. Lastly, I do not mention this thread in my block reason recorded in the log — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Commas are indeed important, and I understand now, I still feel the block is premature and circumvents the community process here. We aren't done discussing it, but we are now, because you blocked them. And I support the block, I just think this was way too fast. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Absolutely. This is an absurd rush to judgement and a clear violation of procedure. Nominating someone's user boxes for deletion and then indef blocking him when he defends them is absurd. I se no evidence of racism at all other than "symbols" (in fact, just one symbol) which, at least arguably, has more than one meaning which can be benign and another that can be historical. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Because debating whether or not a confederate editor should be blocked is the ideal use of editor time. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you are going to accuse someone of being a "confederate" as others have accused him of being a Nazi/racist, you should certainly have evidence to back it up. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  His own off-wiki social media page (which he links himself on his user page, this is information he puts out there himself) identifies himself as "Confederate American". Just saying. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  He also calls himself a Sphenisciform (a flightless bird), so I don't think that can be taken as a clear sign of "support of racism/nazisim". In fact, his userbox seemed to indicate he wanted to distance himself from racism/slavery (the exact opposite of what he seemed to be advocating). Now, I think he's wrong/immature, but I think that's a VERY poor reason for a block. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I only referred to him as a confederate, as that is what he is, and proof of such has been displayed to you. I never said anything about the two "isms" you mentioned. WP:NONAZIS is broader in scope than just nazis. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That appears to be a reference to his lineage: a descendant of Confederates. When he openly decries slavery, he's not exactly endorsing the Confederacy considering that was its aim (to keep slavery legal). 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Buffs (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Buffs: you should keep up. Have you even read his own description of himself on Twitter? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  You should keep up...that's what I'm referring to Buffs (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  So then you're aware that he openly describes himself as a confederate-american. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have you actually looked at his edits...or his userpage? He has repeatedly touted his "confederate heritage." Is it ok for someone to be proud of their "KKK heritage"? "Nazi heritage"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Or perhaps TNT can clarify with a block for misogyny too, or is that ok? Because it's very clear in the diffs by Bedford on this very thread and I quote: I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  How is a subjective assessment of attractiveness "misogyny"? I think lots of people are physically unattractive for a variety of reasons. Most people do. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Enlighten yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Facts are not misogyny. While I find "that after Melina stripped Torrie Wilson to win a 'bra & panties match' at The Great American Bash (2005), referee Candice Michelle stripped Melina and herself as well?" unnecessarily trivial and didn't need to be on the main page, I don't think it's ironclad evidence that Bedford's a "misogynist" in perpetuity. The fact is that The Great American Bash (2005) happened and so did the events it described. As such, it's a fact, not misogyny. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Just look at his twitter feed and FB page before you keep going. I get trying to ensure this remains a place where uncomfortable ideas are tolerated, but seriously, spend 5 minutes scrolling through either and then decide if this is who you want to defend to the very end. nableezy - 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  At this point, I'm defending no one but myself. You are conflating "defending a principle" with "defending a person". An attorney who defends a murderer is not synonymous with advocating the act of murder. I never said I agree with this person. I can (and have) defended those on BOTH sides of the political aisle for the same retribution. Buffs (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  This isnt a court of law, you arent this users legal representative, and this isnt retribution. And you have to be aware that the impression one gets when you keep defending racists and misogynists and fascists that at the very least racism, misogyny, and fascism are not disqualifying attributes to be an editor in good standing here. And yes, you are defending considerably more than yourself rn. Look before you leap is all Im saying. If you still want to leap, be my guest. nableezy - 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm defending principles, not racism, misogyny, or fascism (where the **** do you get that in any way...I don't think you think "fascism" means what you think it means and I see zero evidence presented that he's of that ilk). Assess him based on his merits as you see fit, but I believe in people being judged (on ANY side) for what they've done, not what others think they are thinking or might do. If you think I support racism, despite the fact I reject it, I can't help you. Accusing someone of "misogyny" over something that was NSFW, but objectively true...I'm saying the facts don't line up with the accusation. Fascism? You've completely lost me. Buffs (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Many in the South view their "confederate heritage" as tied to their pride in their relative's service to their state, not what the state did or stood for. Conflating support for their service with support for their state's choices is misleading. That doesn't mean that his statements couldn't be made much more clear. His user box could easily have been modified to show the south and redone some of the phrasing to mean something much more in line with that.

  Of course, no, KKK or Nazi heritage are things that people generally shun. But Confederate heritage is not so stark. There are many nuances to that. FWIW, I had relatives fight for the Union and I have no love for the institution the Confederacy was founded to preserve (slavery) nor the subsequent racism that followed in the post-war century. I completely support the Civil Rights act and amendments that were passed to curtail this injustice. Buffs (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Support of the confederacy is no different than support of someone's ancestors being Nazis who died in WW2. And Bedford has made their feelings on people of color very clear in their edits, as well as their linked social media. WP:NONAZIs isn't just about actual Nazis. We shouldn't subjugate editors to violent rhetoric for the sake of trying to appease editors who have demonstrated by their own word that they are not here to collaborate or build an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  But also, sure, everyone here should be aware that Bedford thinks we are all "mentally ill children" also, so... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see "support of the confederacy" in anything you've posted. I see that he's a descendant. There is a VAST difference between being a Nazi and someone who fought for Germany in WWII. One is a political party who used a country to impose their will. The other is the army that was used to do that. The two are not synonymous. Many former Nazis distanced themselves once they saw where things were going. Others were proud of the work they did while working for the Nazis (example: German scientists and Rocket Engineers), but had no love for the Nazi's beliefs. Some have conflated that pride in work and what was done to advance science as "pro-Nazi", but there are nuances that should be considered. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The irony of someone who has not bothered to look at their history here, their userpage, their actual edits and responses in this very thread while also trying to mansplain to me what is and is not misogyny is not lost on me. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who doesn't seem to care about facts when presented with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Any time someone ends a discussion with "you're mansplaining" (my opinion doesn't count because of my gender...the irony is flowing in here...), I think it's pretty safe to say that the argument has been "won". You haven't presented facts. You've presented nothing more than conjecture and accusations. Buffs (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  And you've presented a whole lot of "some Nazis were good people, actually." You might want to just back off and drop this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I said Germans, not Nazis. If you can't make that distinction, perhaps you should let the adults talk. It sure is easy to just lump everyone together and claim moral superiority isn't it? Buffs (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  You also said Confederates not Southerners... So which is it? Are you defending Nazi/Confederate heritage or German/Southern heritage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The only time "Confederates" was when I said "descendant of Confederates" when explaining his lineage. "Lineage" (who was in your family) is not synonymous with "heritage" (a culture). To be 100% clear, I am not defending Nazi/Confederate heritage or the associated culture. Such advocacy should be stricken from WP. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then strike it "Many in the South view their "confederate heritage" as tied to their pride in their relative's service to their state, not what the state did or stood for." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  What exactly should I strike? What in that statement (which includes a quote) is objectively not true? What in that sentence implies that I endorse such views? Let's put it another way: consider: "Many Muslim extremists believe their troubles are caused by Jews and attack them based on these beliefs. The Nazis also felt similarly." Both sentences are true (albeit simplistic). I don't endorse such views nor do I agree with either of these factions of humanity. Simply writing a fact doesn't mean I endorse/agree with it. You're making a lot of assumptions. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Christ, you're just going to keep digging deeper, aren't you?

  You're making a lot of assumptions

  Have you even read what you're typing? Because, holy fuck, are you making a lot of assumptions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now that just sounds like just following orders. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, he appears to be invoking the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not at all. Many aircraft, mechanical, and aerospace personnel had nothing to do with the Holocaust and did not support it when they found out about it. The US openly admitted German people (including scientists and soldiers/airmen/sailors) after WWII if they openly renounced Nazism; most never accepted it in the first place.

  I think most people in the US support our troops/veterans (polls show they are among the 5 most trusted professions). When our soldiers were sent to Gulf War/Etc, they recognized the soldiers were sent without regard for their personal wishes. Regardless of whether we supported the President at the time, we supported the troops and recognized that they served their country and its ideals, not necessarily the leader or political party in power. The same was true of the German Army/Air Force/Navy. In fact, many of them served leadership roles in the post-war era leading to the overwhelming rejection of said Nazism in Germany. Buffs (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC

  Oh boy, that is a HUGE gloss over of the de-Nazification of the German state post WWII, and ignores a huge part as to why former Wehrmacht leaders were allowed to lead the new West German Army. It wasn't just "Oh, they disliked the nazis but participated, they're okay". FrederalBacon (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, thats the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, its a myth. See also Paragraph 175#Development in West Germany and . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  To be entirely fair, the main reason that myth exists is the reason Buffs believes it. "They let them serve after, they had to be good" is the exact opposite. It's more "They knew the Wehrmacht wasn't clean, and propagated the myth to soften the blow of having former Nazis lead West German army during Cold War". FrederalBacon (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I never said the Wehrmacht was "clean" in any way. I'm saying that it wasn't 100% evil either. I'm not saying "they disliked the nazis but participated, they're okay". I'm saying that merely being in the military doesn't mean you automatically support everything your government espouses. By that perverted logic the Union soldiers supported slavery as the Union had four slave states during the war and permitted slavery during the Civil War.

  The implication that I support criminal prosecution of homosexuals or the persecution of Gypsies/Roma is abhorrent and suggest that you strike that remark. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that was the implication there, I think the intention was to show that not everything of Nazi Germany was gone after 1945, however, while Paragraph 175 was terrible, it's not like the persecution of homosexuality was geographically limited to Germany. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I never stated nor implied "everything of Nazi Germany was gone after 1945". It took decades to get to the point we are at today. I'm well aware, first hand. We faced the same sorts of issues in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc (previous administrators kept in place despite the prior record). I'm only stating that members of the military (or even government) don't necessarily support whoever is in charge. To level the charge at anyone that they support their leaders/actions just because they were in government is just as ignorant as saying that, when power changes hands, they suddenly are all 100% ok. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That wasn't the implication... The implication is that you need to re-consider your dated historical views or in fact learn about topics you previously knew nothing about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The implication that I "know nothing about" these is absurd. You're concluding things I never stated. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  You stated them clearly, you said "In fact, many of them served leadership roles in the post-war era leading to the overwhelming rejection of said Nazism in Germany." which either means you're completely ignorant of history, a Nazi apologist, or both. So which is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  In complete context, I was clearly stating that those that rejected Nazism were among those that served leadership roles in the post-war era led to the overwhelming and eventual rejection of said Nazism in Germany. The fact that you somehow read that as being a Nazi apologist is truly baffling. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  "those that rejected Nazism were among those that served leadership roles in the post-war era led to the overwhelming and eventual rejection of said Nazism in Germany" is just as false, I suggest you read the linked Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, Paragraph 175#Development in West Germany, and the documentary which discusses this in detail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  What about that statement is false? Are you saying those put in power by the occupying forces post-WWII were ALL Nazis?

  While it's definitely true that, for example "90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party" from 1949 to 1973, it's equally true that 80 were not (simple math). Those are the people I'm referring to, not the former Nazi-party members. They were the ones who helped drive policies and laws to become extremely anti-Nazi over the following decades. Buffs (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. If anyone doubts what an utterly repulsive individual we're talking about, see this Facebook post. (His Facebook account is linked from his user page, so this is not outing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and I've reversed my !vote above. Show this racist slime the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  How is that comment "racist"? Is it because of the minorities that he shot? Buffs (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can work it out, taken in line with his other comments (including denying Confederate racism). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can spell it out. You're intentionally being vague and crucifying someone over it Buffs (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The totality of what I've seen screams racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic bigot to me, and my comments are aimed at whoever closes this - I'm not trying to convince those who support him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then, to the closing party, I would contend that this is guilt by accusation and without evidence and bid you adieu. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention his blatant contempt for trans people. There are a dozen examples I could place here of why this is a good block, but I know that the ardent supporters will never be convinced so there's not much point in spreading his hate speech any further. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That one's quite ironic really, coming from such a physically repulsive man. Just as well he's happy being a bachelor, really. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  (Oh, and yeah, I know all about WP:NPA and all that, but C Bedford Crenshaw is the kind of person WP:IAR is made for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC))

  Boing, I would kindly ask you strike that. WP:IAR exists, but so does WP:CIVIL. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well, OK then, seeing as you ask so nicely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for reverting Andrevan, but I think this is now formally a community ban thread and as such needs to remain open. nableezy - 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. Alright. Andre🚐 19:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It became a formal CBAN thread when TAOT made the recommendation to indef him. I'm not sure why there is an idea that this is NOT a CBAN thread, someone proposed a sanction, we are discussing it, it has been a CBAN thread since TAOT proposed a block. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTBURO, he's now blocked so thread is moot, that's why I tried to close the thread. However, I will respect those who wish to continue discussing it as a CBAN on top of the existing indefblock. Andre🚐 19:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is the block. The reason there is the rush to close is because a block has been placed, so this feels moot, but it's not, the discussion was not done when the admin imposed the block, so the discussion regarding the CBAN should continue. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  A block is not a ban, and currently any single admin may unblock this user if they feel an unblock request merits it. A formal CBAN would require a consensus to overturn. nableezy - 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that, and that is my entire point as to why this conversation needs to continue. At this point, the editor could appeal his block and get it removed...but not if consensus is he is banned. The administrator applied a block, thus leading to the overwhelming feeling this should be closed due to mootness, but it ISN'T moot. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, was trying to reply to Andre. nableezy - 20:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand. That's fine. Andre🚐 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I wanted him indeffed. I didn't really care if it was a community ban or an admin saw his activity and decided to indef. The result is the same. He's completely incompatible with Misplaced Pages and I hope the door hits him on the way out. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand you just wanted him indeffed, but the way it was done, including the fact that it immediately became a discussion and vote, to me means it is a formal CBAN discussion, even if it doesn't use a "proper" format, or wasn't intended to be one. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's... not how it works. If it were, there'd be a hell of a lot more CBANs in effect right now. People can stop by and support an indef without making it a formal community ban, they're just saying "yeah, this person probably shouldn't be here." — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  So...the community....is giving input that an editor shouldn't be here, due to their conduct...and recommending them be indef blocked. How is that different than a CBAN discussion? Because it's not titled as such? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Essentially yes. We want to be explicitly clear when making a community ban. I've previously seen discussions with lots of users piping in to support a ban on user, but the moment someone claims it's a CBAN folks turn around and deny that it's what they're supporting. Folks can support a simple ban that can be appealed to an administrator, without supporting a full community ban. A CBAN discussion needs to be clear from the outset, or made its own subsection, so there's no confusion or misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's lovely time for someone to formally close this shitshow Iamreallygoodatcheckers 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Before someone closes this ... I have some cred to burn by disagreeing with this block. It was bad enough to nominate someone's political userboxes in one of which they explicitly disavowed racism and in another of which (as Floquenbeam has shown) an extremist emblem was substituted for "GOP" by another editor, presumably without their knowledge. Now they have been indeffed on the basis of their response plus the userboxes, and people are trawling through their social media. Granted, we apparently aren't losing much in the way of article contributions, if you want to be utilitarian. But if they were displaying their politics and thus intimidating other members of the community other than in userboxes (since their statements in the long-ago thread that led to their desysopping; long ago that it was a deus ex Jimbone desysop), I missed it while I slept. They got poked, and I don't see that they were doing harm except by the userboxes. And we still permit political and religious self-expression in userboxes. Going after individual users one by one because someone notices a political/religious userbox with which they disagree amounts to a honeypot, it distracts from our encyclopedic mission, it erodes community trust, it's fundamentally unfair, and of course it's going to provoke uncivil responses from some of those users. It's bear-poking. Fair would be to ban all of the political and religious userboxes. They fail the criterion established after the userbox wars (which were before my time, I note; no, I am not a sock of a Great Old One), namely, not to be divisive. I'm saddened bordering on disgusted, especially since community discussion included several people opposing a block. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Fair would be to ban all of the political and religious userboxes." — strongly agree, and would support your RfC should you go for it — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I meant to post here too, not just at Bedford's talk page, but I got distracted. Since Yngvadottir mentioned me, though... The short version of my message on Bedford's talk page was that any criticism of Bedford based on the VRWC userbox featuring a fascism logo was unfair, as another editor substituted that logo for a harmless "GOP logo" without Bedford's knowledge. To the extent this might have been what TNT meant by "NONAZIS", I thought it only fair to mention. But as has adequately been demonstrated by others, and as I recall back when he was desysopped, there is a ton of other evidence that Bedford is a thoroughly icky person, so I choose not to spend any of my time arguing against a block that might have partially been based on a misunderstanding of the circumstances around that userbox, when there is so much other evidence that wasn't even mentioned in the block log that we're best off without him. I still think a community ban discussion is silly, as no admin is going to reverse this block unless Bedford says things that he will obviously never say. But from recent experience, if people really, really want to argue the toss, trying to do them a favor and save them time by getting them to not argue the toss won't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not just about the userboxes. He was also a massive jerk to multiple editors for no reason, and his social media was openly linked on his userpage, so you're totally wrong to imply that people went out and looked for his social media. He's been uncivil for over a decade. Don't turn this into an opportunity for you to soapbox about how we are the thought police. This was an excellent block of a thoroughly reprehensible user. If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists), I would be thrilled. I will not share Misplaced Pages with fascists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists). sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh all you want. When I posted my comment, yours was not visible. At risk of sounding like a troll in saying this, AGF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists) - Did you even read Floquenbeam or Yngvadottir's posts? It was changed, just a couple of months ago, when the editor probably wasn't even aware. I'm willing to give a pass on that UBX, given the fact that a different editor put that symbol on there. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The rest of my comment still stands. Bedford should have been blocked years ago, even ignoring that particular userbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  You don't find any disagreement with me on that. While I argued the block was premature given the CBAN discussion, a block was inevitable, clearly incompatible with project goals. And as you've retracted "I will not share Misplaced Pages with fascists", a statement I was going to take issue with (you can't just block everyone you believe is fascist), I think you and I are both on the same page. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I have (had) some cred to burn (apparently I am on the verge of soapbox about how we are the thought police. AGF, as they say). Per Floq, there is a ton of other evidence that Bedford is a thoroughly icky person; per Trainsandotherthings, He was also a massive jerk to multiple editors for no reason. I trust TNT blocked him for recent on-wiki evidence of this ickiness and jerkitude. I am not suggesting anyone violated WP:OUTING. But what matters is whether someone plays nicely with others here on-wiki, how they respond to someone reporting their userboxes at AN/I and someone else nominating them for deletion isn't in and of itself a good indicator of that, and the fact an editor has a Facebook/Twitter/Goodreads/body of writings on Medium/personal website and mentions it on their userpage doesn't make their writings there germane to judging their behavior on-wiki. There's at least one slippery slope here, and applying political litmus tests is both disrespectful of fellow editors and destructive of our goal of having a diverse community of editors working together to improve the encyclopedia. Icky and a jerk is one thing. I hope he was blocked not for that, but for behaving on-wiki in such a way as to have a chilling effect on fellow editors. (And if that chilling effect was just the userboxes, deleting them would have been sufficient.) Because conflating "This person has politically intolerant views" with "This person is intolerant of their fellow editors" is bad, not the least because it will eventually result in a severely limited pool of editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I personally agree with all of that, but I also cant say that an editor who says I rarely use Misplaced Pages anyway anymore, after I got robbed of my admin status. If I get banned I will take it as a badge of honor. IT is further proof that no one should take WP seriously, especially considering the Recession debacle. is not saying very bluntly that they are NOTHERE. And that is sufficient to block. nableezy - 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wait, you're advocating banning people based on criticism of Misplaced Pages? Buffs (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your comment doesnt seem to relate to mine in any way, but no, it is the blunt I lost my admin ball so now I dont want to have anything to do with this place and Im proud of getting banned. Ive found your input to be less than useful, as per usual tbh, and I dont think I have anything else to add to this discussion, so feel free to get in one more reply if youd like. nableezy - 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir, would you mind expanding on conflating "This person has politically intolerant views" with "This person is intolerant of their fellow editors" is bad? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The following may seem like starry-eyed hippy-dippy "let's all sing kumbaya", but this is a community with the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. What we should care about here is how someone acts on-wiki. If they respect fellow editors of all stripes (and endeavor to maintain NPOV in articles and discussions about encyclopedic coverage), that they are personally an X or an anti-Y is just part of our diversity. We shouldn't chase someone away because some of us or even most of us dislike their politics, religion, or morality; the reason to show someone the door is when they disrespect fellow editors on-wiki. (Tthe references in this discussion to this editor's reaction on Facebook to being blocked strike me as regrettable.) The easiest and fairest way to minimize people being shocked by others' beliefs and values is of course to enforce the ban on userboxes that state political and religious positions. We've had this issue arise in the past with atheist user boxes that mock religious belief; again, that's going to shock and repel some other users, but what matters is whether the editor edits courteously. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Clarify. You mean, if I had a userbox that read "I'm an atheist". It would get deleted? GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let’s not slippery slope this, the only point here is Bedford is WAY over the line on his general behavior. The userboxes turned out to just be the tip of the iceberg. Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete userboxes that fail MfDs or blank his userpage. But don't block/ban him, unless he restores the userboxes. Remember, we might be setting a precedent here, on how this kinda situation is handled. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Reading this, I have gone the full range from thinking that you can't indef someone for 7 year old diffs and endorsing a strong warning only, to seeing the merit of TNT's bold block, to now feeling like I essentially endorse an indef/cban after I see how much discussion and ridiculous stuff is being posted coming close to defending the neo-confederate position. Yeah, we should outright block Nazis, no we aren't blocking people for thoughtcrime, but when users started deleting the userboxes, the blocked editor could have had a reasonable response, rather than an immature response digging in. Based on this discussion I just removed a bunch of my own lefty politics userboxes. Not because I no longer feel they should be permitted, but because I'm realizing how many wasted hours have already been burned on ad hominems and insane arguments. I don't endorse doxxing or trawling through social media. I do think this thread is giving fuel to the fire for people who hate Misplaced Pages and think it's a lefty-liberal bastion, though of course it is NOT, but we really shouldn't be litigating actual content fringe views in this thread, people! In conclusion, just for the time wasting alone and the incivility, the block is endorseable. Andre🚐 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: I have given up on the idea that certain people are ever going to see Misplaced Pages as anything but left-leaning (which is categorically untrue) after the Talk:Recession drama. The people who believe that seem content to just make things up at this point, so why should we care what they actually think? They'll never be convinced, so we should just ignore them. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I can't argue with you. Andre🚐 04:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  It’s not doxxing if it’s public info Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"we might be setting a precedent here" — one can only hope, but WP:NONAZIS is fairly good already, good idea though! — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef or CBAN -- Misplaced Pages gains nothing from having neo-confederates as members of the community. Show them (and all purveyors of racist ideologies) the door. --Rockstone 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment He seems proud of his block. All the more reason to keep it. He's happy, we're happy, the community is happy. Good riddance. --Rockstone 23:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Yay! Dronebogus (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Also I’m a mentally ill child, DOUBLE YAY!! Dronebogus (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block decision, Support indef CBAN. Bedford is incredibly rude and has a laundry list of fundamentally unacceptable beliefs clearly proven here, including Neo-Confederate sympathies, sexism, ableism, anti-vax, transphobia, and probable homophobia. This is different from my vote on blocking in the first place (I’m voting that the admin made the right call and a CBAN), so I’m not vote stacking. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block & support CBAN. Yes Bedford is fairly inactive but not quite inactive enough for this to be moot. And ultimately while the notification may have alerted them, it was their choice whether to comment in response. My reasoning is a little different from many FWICT. For me, what it comes down to is I don't think an editor who says they were gangraped , (some minor corrections later ), , when the only thing that happened was discussion followed by Jimbo Wales de-sysoping, should be allowed to edit here. No editor should have to put up with that since effectively Bedford is saying these unnamed but known editors gangraped them which for many reasons is not acceptable hyperbole. For that matter, an editor who refers to their fellow editors as feminazis is also IMO not compatible with editing here. And while it may have only been a single incident on-wiki when combined with their saying perhaps female editors objected because they were jealous over attractive women , frankly if this happened now. those two would be enough for me to support an indef until the editor demonstrated they understood how fucking offensive their comments were. While it may have been a long time since they made those comments with the most recent one being over 9 year old, their most recent comments including on this very ANI show they views haven't fundamentally changed, they still don't understand how offensive what they said was. At most maybe they recognise the need to avoid saying it on-wiki. That isn't enough for me when you were willing to say it in the past, especially when the editor hardly ever does anything here. To be clear, I'm not saying an editor has to agree with the concerns about the DYK. It's possible to respectfully disagree i.e. without saying you were gangraped or calling your fellow editors feminazis. I'm aware the gangrape thing was discussed a fair amount at the time and nothing happened. Indeed after a bunch of edit warring and discussion it was allowed to stand until Bedford removed it when changing their user page . That was IMO a very wrong decision which I'm embarrassed to admit I effectively was part of. (I don't think I ever commented but I'm fairly sure I heard about this at the time, it's why I recalled it and I'm fairly sure I didn't fight for a stronger decision.) I still think it's fine we correct this decision now when it's clear while they may have stopped using such offensive language, they clearly don't recognise how wrong what they said is. I'd note this cannot be simply put down to blowing off steam in the aftermath, as shown by the diffs the were still saying the same gangrape shit onwiki in 2013, nearly 5 years afterwards. On that point, for clarity I only refer to what they have said on-wiki. I only looked at a single off-wiki thing which was their comments about transwomen and that was an accident and I'd already formed an opinion by then. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I think I may have looked at some of the off-wiki stuff in 2008 although I don't recall what I saw.) I don't feel it's helpful to get into the issue of whether off-wiki comments should prevent someone from editing here when the on-wiki comments are IMO sufficient disqualification. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, support CBAN. The evidence is clear that Bedord is -- as someone said above -- "a thoroughly icky person". His use of disturbing and insulting userboxes, his racist post on Facebook, his comments on trans people, are all very obvious indications that he is not the sort of person who can contribute here in a balanced and NPOV manner. Although Dennix Brown is an admin I have great respect for, he is wrong in categorizing this as "thoughtcrime", because -- like censorship -- thoughtcrime can only be defined in terms of the society as a whole, not in connection with a privately-owned and -operated website. Bedord is welcome to contribute to Conservapedia, or Racistopedia, or Confederapedia if he so wishes, but here we have -- or should have -- a much higher standard, and Bedford has shown his personal disdain for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, support CBAN. Support for Confederacy, open transphobia and homophobia, misogyny and all this shit about America "held hostage"... This guy clearly has been collecting every alt-right bullshit he came across. Per WP:NONAZIS, we don't need his type. But, for sure, he'll be top shot editor on Conservapedia, they'll accept him with open arms raised right hands. And, as farewell gift, I'll give him imaginary brown shirt from my drawer. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 06:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  metapedia would be more his speed if he is a nazi sympathizer, conservapedia is probably closer to his actual beliefs Dronebogus (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block, support CBAN. Just to be known – I already voted to indef Bedford, this vote is meant to support the action of TheresNoTime and a CBAN. As a community, we definitely don't need someone who displays open support for the Confederacy, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny and various conspiracy theories (not to mention the additude towards other editors). There should be no place on Misplaced Pages for people with such views, regardless of their past merits. —Sundostund (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I think we are engaging in the Misplaced Pages equivalent of sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion. It's hard to argue that Bedford did enough in the very near-term that would rise to the level of an indef block and a CBAN. We are essentially banning him for all of his prior unprosecuted misdeeds - something we should have done years ago but failed to. Say what you will about how much this block-and-ban makes us feel good; Misplaced Pages policy (I emphasize policy and not essays) does not provide for this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  You’re talking about sending Capone to prison like it’s a bad thing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Capone metaphor was a bit extreme, but what I'm pointing out that we are not blocking and banning for active, continued and ongoing disruption to the Misplaced Pages. The nature of this block is nearly entirely cathartic, and the precedence established by that is what concerns me. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. That is my point as well. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  We have banned people for having neo-Nazi, racist, or homophobic/transphobic beliefs before. So it's not so much precedent as established behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, IMHO it was WAY better to send Al Capone to prison only for tax evasion, than to allow him to roam around freely, live in his "hard earned" wealth and immerse himself in his "business" ventures. Sometimes, doing something is better than doing nothing. Also, mistakes and failures of the past can be (and should be) corrected, and that is how I see this indef block and a CBAN. —Sundostund (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I've self-requested review of my block at WP:AARV — for what it's worth, I'd appreciate any comments y'all make there to remain strictly on the topic of my admin actions (i.e. best to continue the "back and forth" here, if you're so inclined) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it's a tad discomforting to know that editors are monitoring the userpages of other editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And why's that GoodDay? User pages don't belong to the user, and patrolling user space edits finds a lot of promotional spam (among other less savoury things) — surely you're not discomforted to know that such pages are monitored and deleted? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Suppose you, Dronebogus or anyone else had userboxes & someone took offense to any of them? It would be quite upsetting, to the editor who's userboxes are MfD. I'm more concerned with whether an editor is pushing their PoV on Misplaced Pages pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

User pages are commonly viewed by other editors. Within reason, they should not include objectionable content. I'd say announcing that you're proud of your confederate heritage falls inside that. Wouldn't you agree? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't share Bedford's views on the Confederacy. If he isn't pushing his views on that topic, onto mainspace or in discussions? Then don't bother with him. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse/CBAN This may be the first time I've ever disagreed with Yngvadottir, but I simply don't see that we're losing anything here. What are the positives of leaving Bedford unblocked? Nothing, and they've proved that themselves. What are the negatives? Well, just read up this page. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support block, endorse CBAN. I already supported a block above, this comment serves as confirmation that I also support a CBAN. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse/CBAN. All else aside, they're clearly and persistently uncivil, with no indication that they're going to improve. This is a collaborative project, which depends on working with others; editors have the right to their private beliefs but not the right to express those beliefs on-wiki in a way that insults other editors. And when people point out that their userboxes are insulting, Bedford has constantly responded in an insulting and belittling manner. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block - While I can't sympathize with many of Bedford's personal views on various topics (as communicated by hundreds of userboxes on his user page), I can't see any policy-based rationale for this block. Bedford had some objectionable and inappropriate userboxes on his user page. Ok, the solution is to remove the userboxes and nominate them for deletion, not jump straight to an indef block. Bedford also made some mildly uncivil remarks in a recent MfD, referring to another editor as "childish" and "ignorant". This type of language, while discouraged, is hardly worthy of an indefinite block. If we handed out indef blocks to everyone who made comments on this level, we wouldn't have any editors left. Hell, I would've been indef blocked 15 years ago if that were the standard operating procedure here. It's not. Therefore, I have to believe that this user was blocked because he made a userbox that implies that he disapproved of President Obama and later changed it to imply his support for the January 6th insurrection. Sure, some of these views are reprehensible in my opinion, but I don't think there is a policy basis to block someone for expressing unpopular views (assuming those views don't rise to the level of overt racism, discrimination, hate speech, etc. - and disapproving of Obama is not inherently racist). Some people are reaching back in Bedford's editing history, pointing to edits from 10 years ago as justification for a block. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. Again, if someone has an objectionable userbox, remove it from the page, nominate it for deletion, give the user a warning, and move on. If the user restores the userbox despite the warning, then we can think about blocking them. This block was premature and not policy-based. As much as I disagree with just about all of Bedford's personal views, I don't think WP will benefit by blocking all users that fail to conform to a certain limited range of political beliefs. There are already enough accusations of WP becoming a liberal echo chamber, we don't need to add fuel to the fire by blocking a harmless editor that makes 3 edits every 5 years. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block per WaltCip and Scottywong. While I find Bedford repugnant, I frankly don't see a policy-based reason to block him. Will I mourn for Bedford if he gets banned? Certainly not. But do I think the OP should have found something better to do instead of stirring up controversy with an inactive editor? Absolutely. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse/CBAN Much of my thoughts have already been surmised by others, particularly Sundostund, Dronebogus and Praxidicae. In coming to this opinion, I've read through this discussion, the current discussion on Bedford's talk page, all three of the userbox MfDs, the 2008 ANI thread that lead to Bedford's desysop, and recent posts on Bedford's Twitter and Facebook (both are linked on his userpage). In doing so I've seen many uncivil comments, displays of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE says that blocks should be used for three things 1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages; 2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and 3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. While this obviously fails #1, because Bedford has been mostly inactive since late 2013, I believe it meets #2. Bedford's on wiki behaviour has not changed in the 14 years since Jimbo desysopped him, and his recent off-wiki reactions to the block by TheresNoTime show absolutely no sign of self reflection or acceptance that his behavour is the problem here, as he continues to lash out and blame others for the consequences of his choices and actions. As such I believe this block meets criteria #2 of BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, because it will inherently deter the continuation of present, disruptive behaviour that, based on his history, is likely to repeat and persist in perpituity. The best time to indef or CBAN Bedford was when he was last active, the second best time to indef or CBAN him is now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - The editor has been lurking for more than a decade, prepared to cause disruption when the opportunity was right, as is indicated by replying quickly at MFD and changing the date in the userbox. An ongoing risk to the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block – Completely frivolous and moralistic block. As for potential disruption to WP, the user is not active, so there's our answer. I also concur with what's been said above wrt echo chamber, thoughtcrime, etc. Nutez (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block. For disclosure I voted above (pre-block) opposing it, and now I'm voting to undo the block. This was a bad block. It was made arbitrarily at a point in the discussion when there was clearly no consensus for a block. Instead the admin in question took it upon themselves to ignore the discussion and do it anyway. I agree with Nutez, Scottywong, and others that Bedford was not disrupting the project and this was clearly motivated by his silly userboxes that could have simply been deleted. The idea that him removing a newsletter from his talk page is homophobic is also laughable. Undo the block and only reinstate it if his actually disrupts the project. — Czello 08:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Ah, we're still talking; I came here to read the close. Sorry, Black Kite and others, and thanks for the offer of an alternate venue, TNT, but similarly to ScottyWong, I don't see this as a policy-compliant block. I hadn't read Bedford's response here when I typed my above statements; I now have, and have looked at his talk page responses too, and while he is providing yet another example of the axiom that those who call fellow editors immature—in this case, childish—have some learning about adult styles of discourse to do themselves, he presented no threat to the encyclopedia, imminent or otherwise. He made only one response here (to my surprise), and I disagree with some of the characterizations of its level of rudeness. Calling him NOTHERE based on his churlish reactions to being attacked (which is what it amounts to, including insistence that he could not mean what he said in one userbox) was an overreaction, and adding a NONAZIS rationale based on an emblem someone else had slipped into a userbox that other editors were transcluding onto their userpages was unjust. In my opinion. Sorry again, folks; justice matters, tolerance should not be only for viewpoints we agree with, diversity includes everyone, be better than them, a big tent gives us a better encyclopedia, etc., your bromide here. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Diversity doesn’t include people who openly express hate for anyone who isn’t like them, which extends far beyond the stupid nazi box here Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1 week block for his uncivil comments and pa. I think those who support indef focus too much on his previous conduct and those who oppose block overlook his recent personal attacks. I think one week block would be a balanced approach.--Madame Necker (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block - this would set a dangerous precedent --FMSky (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The precedent being that racists and neoconfederates aren't welcome here? Because that is exactly the point. Misplaced Pages gains nothing and loses a lot by keeping this user around. --Rockstone 13:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

    What do you mean by keeping this user around? He barely edits, and this whole kerfuffle is quite likely to provoke him into making a come-back to "trigger the libs" or smth. No need to give him and his ilk more hate fuel. Please ignore and move on. Nutez (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• This community doesn't need people who express support for the Confederacy, as well as racism, homophobia, transphobia, mysogyny, etc. Should someone who displays things like this, this and this on their social networks accounts (which they themselves linked from their user page here) be a member of this project? Someone who sees their fellow users as "mentally ill children"? They should be let to enjoy their "badge of honor" (as they called their indef block), far away from this project and regardless of their past merits. —Sundostund (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Goodness, is this where we're at? Scouring their social media to find objectionable content? — Czello 19:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the supports for a ban, mostly due to Bedford's off-Misplaced Pages views? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Mine is mostly based on the yes very old but not that far back in his edit history editing of placing "the War of Northern Aggression" in Misplaced Pages's voice for the American Civil War and the general contempt for the community expressed in his parting message. nableezy - 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose block this is entirely over-the-top and pointless waste of time precipitated by nothing other than political dislike. The editor hasn't been editing, and their only recent actions were grumbling—hardly the stuff we block over. There was no policy-based reason for the block, let alone trying for a ban out-of-process. It could have been ignored like any reasonable adult should, and the encyclopedia would be no worse off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, oppose Gross overreaction. We frequently encounter prejudiced editors, and handle them proportionately to the harm they’re causing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed! I oppose on the same grounds. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Ban & CBAN - Let's not split hairs here: we cannot tolerate users who support racist, sexist or homophobic belief systems here & still call this an encyclopedia which is friendly to others. Certain belief systems are simply incompatible with that goal, and are not simple "opinions" which one may agree or disagree ove. Bedford has made it very clear that not only have they no interest in actually contributing to the encyclopedia anymore, they support bigoted beliefs, hold the entire community in contempt, and are proud of being abrasive & offensive. Further, the argument that we cannot consider off-wiki behavior is foolhardy. It is simply more evidence that his views are incompatible with this project, and he will not be able to work with others appropriately. This is not "political dislike," this is protecting project members from someone who has espoused agreement with racist ideology. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, looking at the history on this noticeboard, we do not promptly kick off racists. My impression is that we’re Western-Europe/north-American centric, in that we respond more vigorously to issues in that region than others. For example, here’s an anti-Armenian genocide denier Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Ethno-nationalist editing by user:Aloisnebegn. Received a 31-hour block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is worth pointing out that when Bedford was de-mopped by Jimbo in 2008, off-wiki content (a Myspace blog post) was given as the primary reason behind the action, and ArbCom has affirmed that they can take note of off-wiki behavior for settling on-wiki disputes. I understand the idea of not using social media against someone, because social media isn't always representative of someone as a person. But there is precedent for having used off-wiki content before, including for a decision regarding this very editor. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support block / CBAN per many of the above comments, especially Sideswipe9th's point about criterion #2 of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. I would also argue that points about the diversity of the editor pool cut both ways: as it stands we do a shit job of retaining minority editors, and treating people like this with kid gloves –– or even just habitually looking the other way –– only contributes to a toxic atmosphere. Finally, the user in question has made it abundantly clear that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, so I'd suggest that much of the hand-wringing about on- versus off-Wiki behavior is moot. It was a good block and it should be solidified as a formal CBAN. Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose indef CBAN, support TBAN on politics of the United States, broadly construed. I don't think that a broad, site-wide CBAN can be justified here as being narrowly tailored towards prevention of disruption. Blocks can be used to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, but I think that a TBAN on the history of the United States would be more narrowly tailored towards deterring this individual's disruption than a CBAN. If the individual chooses to violate that TBAN, or socks to get around it, then a CBAN would likely be warranted, but I'm generally hesitant to immediately indef people with a (practically) clean block log when they aren't causing editing disruptions in those topic areas nor violating any specific community sanctions against them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to social media, no I don't think that postings on social media is a per se reason for a CBAN except when that posting in and of itself disrupts Misplaced Pages (such as through harassment, canvassing, leaking confidential checkuser data, etc.). Just because I can find the twitter account of an editor that's very clearly connected to their Misplaced Pages profile and discover that they deny well-documented human rights abuses doesn't merit a CBAN unless they are merely using Misplaced Pages as a tool in furtherance of their atrocity denial (i.e. they have a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia w.r.t. a particular problem area). And if they are otherwise productive outside of that problem area, it might be better to TBAN them from a specific topic area so that they can productively edit elsewhere. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The reason my opposition to a CBAN is weak is that Bedford really hasn't... done all that much other than be really pointy on their own around 2021. The part of the equation above that says if they are otherwise productive outside of that problem area is important to a TBAN vs CBAN calculation. I just don't think that we have an affirmative case that the user is activley using Misplaced Pages in an attempt to cause disruption; the creation of two inflammatory userboxes c. 2008 is not justification to block a user now even if that user is making poor policy arguments in favor of keeping them. We can clean up the userboxes and move on without having ginormous ban threads if the user doesn't really come here to begin with; the things that specifically concern me are the previously linked diff's edit summary as well as calling an editor childish for nominating two userboxes for deletion in good faith. And, while a temporary block while the deletion discussions are going on makes perfect sense as a preventative measure, I'd really expect to see more of a demonstrated history of bad-faith editing/personal attacks if we're going to implement an indef CBAN for repeated pattern of disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

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

• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator look at User:Nableezy? They have a userbox supporting the violent resistance of the designated terror group Hezbollah, an antisemitic organization that has engaged in mass murder of Jews across the world.

Here is what they have posted on their user page in a prominent location. It links to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah_userbox, and uses Hezbollah colors:

49.185.148.95 (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm losing count, as to how many of his userboxes are being nominated for deletion. As someone mentioned earlier. Just blank his entire userpage. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• IP:49.185.148.95 hasn’t notified the user has posted an ANI about. And this is the IP’s only main post. (just an observation)  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  IP editor, if your country was under military occupation, would you support the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties? Or would you just kneel before the occupying forces and capitulate? I do not see anything for administrators to do here. As for me, I am pro Israel and pro Palestine and pro peace and justice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why do I keep thinking "per Cullen" these days? It's because he's one of the best here at judging things impartially. There seems to be something of an ideological purge attempt happening today, of users based on their political opinions as expressed via userboxes, and I find that disturbing. (My personal political position on issues like this? I'm an advocate of all peoples having the right to freedom and self-determination, though I don't have any smart ideas on how to achieve it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If I had a nickel for everytime someone baselessly went after nableezy for this, I would be quite wealthy. Curbon7 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, the IP editor implies here that a well-established editor supports terrorism or is an anti-semitic terrorist. The IP should be blocked (not necessary) and the matter closed.

  (I like this one, from the past also) - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is pretty obvious trolling. I'm not saying it's not a concern one could raise in good faith, but this isn't someone raising it in good faith. But I've already closed my ARBPIA AN/I thread for the week. Could someone else please? -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 10:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Danielkueh is being uncivil, breaking wp:cred and personally attacking me

@Danielkueh

I was adding summary section hatnotes in Biology linking to main articles, as suggested in WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and common across wikipedia. Most of the hatnotes were very clear what the main article was. For example I added a hatnote under a section titled Photosynthesis linking to photosynthesis. I specifically did all the hatnotes as separate edits to make it easier for editors to revert specific ones rather than all of them. User:Danielkueh reverted all of them, and the following ensued:

1. Hello!!!! Anyone home?!?! Did you read the previous summary?!?!?!?! 5th revert comment I wasn't paying close attention to the Biology edit history while adding hatnotes, so the reverts only got my attention when I noticed that my template:main was no longer there, as Danielkueh's first 5 reverts all happened rather quickly.
2. I believe they are redundant and add unnecessary clutter. After reverting my edits, user:danielkueh posted to my talk page.
3. It got your attention, didn't it? :) -- In response to me asking politely for a more civil attitude (in response to their comment #1). On my talk page
4. Revert as a matter of principle. Why are you being a recalcitrant?!?! 7th revert comment
5. Added edit warring template on my talk page after reverting 5 of my edits. I had redone 3 of the reverted edits (2 of them shouldn't have been reverted in the first place per WP:3RR and WP:DONTREVERT). User:Danielkueh also reverted my redos.
6. If you don't see how atom and molecules related to chemistry, then you have no business editing that article. This is not about "owning." This is about being "accurate." And if you can't be bothered to discuss, then you shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. Patronizing me and taking my words out of context.
7. Do you understand?!?! Do I need to explain it you again? You are a clearly a newb. Maybe you should edit less and observe more.. Also Just do me a favor and don't fuck up the page. Calling me a newb and encouraging me to edit less Also claiming that summary hatnotes are a large format change to the article. Also moved my comments on their talk page to my talk page without asking. Also breaking up my comment with multiple inline replies.
8. Kapish? unnecessary and patronizing.
9. Do you understand how this actually works? If not, read WP:BRD. That's a guideline that actually matters. Patronizing and implying that WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE doesn't matter.
10. And by the way, continuing to add hatnotes even though this discussion has yet to be concluded goes to show that you are clearly disingenuous and have little to no regard for actual WP policies and process. Casting aspersions even though I had agreed not to add hatnotes to certain sections and gave policy-based reasons for the others.
11. Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?! and then And stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. I have been editing here much longer than you. By disregarding this discussion and continuing to do what you want, you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce. Congratulatins Clearly patronizing, appealing to authority and the opposite of WP:CRED and WP:AGF
12. Sorry but I cannot make that assumption. implying that I don't understand logic, and also breaking up my comment with multiple inline replies, making it harder to read.
13. I stand by every one of my statements. Not even a hint of an apology after I pointed out much of what's quoted above^^^

Note: I'll admit I reference policy and guidelines often in discussions, which could be frustrating for experienced editors, but the only personal attack I am aware of making during this is WP:OWN. I have otherwise made every attempt to remain civil. I'll admit I should not have continued adding more hatnotes after User:Danielkueh pinged me, and I apologize for that.

I don't want Danielkueh blocked. They are obviously a long-term experienced editor. I just want them to commit to being WP:CIVIL, and strike all the patronizing comments casting aspersions on my intelligence and intentions. The void century (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you. Danielkueh, whatever your frustrations may be, your responses to this are way over the top. This looks like a fairly ordinary content dispute, and you're adding a lot of unnecessary heat to the situation. Certainly nothing I'd block over or anything, but the level of invective here isn't helping the situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh no. "Don't fuck up the page" calling the editor a newb, saying that because the other editor has been editing much longer their opinion matters more, telling someone the "shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages". I think there is certainly enough here to warrant a block. This is beyond content dispute, no editor has the right to tell another editor they shouldn't be here because there is a content dispute. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I make no apologies.

• This user was initially uninterested in having a discussion, insisting that they "don't have time to discuss section hatnotes on a talk page" and that I should "mind their time". This is not collaborative behavior. Discussions are central to achieving consensus on WP (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). If they're not interested in discussion, then yes, they should not be on WP. WP IS about collaboration and having discussions with one another is how we collaborate.
• People are free to describe my language as being "over the top," but I felt it was important to get the editor to engage in discussion and to be receptive to input from other editors. Besides, I myself have been called worse things on WP by better people. You don't see me whine about it. Anyway, I'm a firm believer in process to resolve content disputes. In fact, I could have easily taken a "win" as the editor conceded. But I guess what? I encouraged him to continue to engage in discussion because it is not about winning. It is about process.. I even thanked him when he decided to open an RfC. A little overkill but good effort, nevertheless.
• I don't mind people citing rules or policies. But they better know what they're talking about. I'm sorry to say this, but this editor doesn't. Just look at the title of this section, which includes "breaking wp:cred." What on earth are they even talking about? Did they even read that essay? I never once brought up my academic credentials or to discuss having them verified. This is the kind of nonsense I have had to deal with over and over again in my discussions with them. Over hatnotes, no less!! And yes, I mentioned that I have edited WP for over 16 years. This has nothing to do with "appealing to authority," but to make the point that I have been around longer and I am well aware of the rules and policies. Hence, there is really no need for them to "teach me to suck eggs."
• If the consensus is to ban ban me and to take your chances with Void to improve the content of WP, then go for it.

danielkueh (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If the consensus is to ban ban me and to take your chances with Void to improve the content of WP and I make no apologies. after telling people to leave Wiki, telling them their contributions don't matter because they haven't been here as long you, telling them not to "Fuck up the page", simply for adding hatnotes you disagree with, doesn't inspire confidence in your collaborative abilities. You have to be civil, it isn't an option, it is REQUIRED, it is Wiki policy, and it is good practice. Editors don't get to ignore civility simply to drive a point home. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification. Once again, I didn't tell them to leave. My point is that if they don't want to discuss, then they shouldn't be on WP. I told them "not to fuck up the page" not because of their hatnotes. In fact, I told them, I wouldn't even bother fighting them on the hatnotes issue. My concern is that they don't have a good understanding of biology and chemistry and are very likely to mess up the content. Call me cynical, but I have seen this before. And I think there's a good chance that it might happen again. Of course, I could be wrong. As for whether people will have "confidence in my ability to collaborate," well, I'll leave that to the admins to decide. If they feel that I should no longer edit WP, then so be it. Maybe it is time to retire anyway. :) danielkueh (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant that the dispute in question is over ordinary content, to be clear. Your chosen tack of mooning the jury isn't helping your cause, and if anything someone who's been here for so long... really should know that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "moon anyone" and I don't have a "cause" to defend. I already said that I will accept whatever decision the committee decides. Tell you what, I'll make it easy for everyone, I'll just retire. If the group wants to ban me too, for good measure, then go ahead. I've said all I've said. Life is too short and I don't want to devote another second of my life to addressing Void's complaints. danielkueh (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you can reply to me without unnecessary invective, all anyone wants you to do is apply that to the dispute between you two. That's the only thing I'm looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Dimontschick

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

Dimontschick (talk · contribs)

This user has warnings on his talk page for adding unsourced content to BLPs going back more than 5 years, with many warnings form multiple users ever since - and was blocked by me for repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs in March 2022. However, they are still at it. We need a longer block. GiantSnowman 09:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In their last 2,000 edits they have also not written any edit summaries.Gusfriend (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Dimontschick for continuing to add unsourced content to BLPs despite having been warned repeatedly for years. The editor can be unblocked if they make an ironclad promise to provide references for all new content that they add. Cullen328 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Cabin134 Attempting to overrule a unanimous merge proposal that ended in WP:SNOW - Disruptive editing

Cabin134 has been trying to revert Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States#Merger proposal, which was a merger proposal open for 4 days (August 3-6), which then ended with a unanimous WP:SNOW closure from 8 editors !voting to merge. Starting late on August 8, Cabin134 began attempting to revert the entire merger (See diffs below). The article history may not appear this way, but Cabin134 is the creator. A draft was copy/paste moved into mainspace, which then had an article history merge completed, but this is the creator overruling a unanimous merge proposal. I left two messages on Cabin134’s talk page (See diffs), with the first saying I draftified the article, because notability was not the reason for the merge. The merge was done because not enough content was present for a separate article. I have been told to be more patient before coming to AN/I, and I have been patient, but communication attempts are not working (talk page messages & user talk page messages), so as much as I hate it, Cabin134 is once again doing disruptive editing and needs a warning or block.

Cabin134 previously was at AN/I just over a week ago (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Cabin134) for blanking an AfD nominated article, which they actually nominated. That AfD was also later closed as a WP:SNOW keep (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2022 Eastern Kentucky floods), but was also merged later and put into ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Diffs reverting the archival closure: Cabin134’s question my reply

Diffs reverting the article merged: (Noting: I have broken 3RR to re-revert the merger this morning, but it should be exempt from the rule.)

Diffs reverting the draftification of the article:

Diffs of Cabin134 talk page messages:

Note: They also added false information to Draft:Super Bowl LXI, falsely claiming the stadium had been announced and moving the draft to the mainspace. Diff ‡ El cid, el campeador 14:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Pretty clear consensus and I think global consensus would support it. Looking at their user page, they put a lot of emphasis on "creating" articles, which is fine, but that seems to be their main motivation. Looking at their diffs, I get the same feeling, the goal is to increase the number, not the quality. Blade blocked while I was typing this, so I will just say I support the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just making a note for any future discussions/appeals, I also discovered a revert removal of an active RfD discussion with the edit summary of “Why?”. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That was a really really bad RFD nomination. Cabin134 replaced a redirect with an article, Numbermaniac shows up 3 hours later, reverts it back to a redirect then nominated it for deletion as a redirect 3 minutes later . Replacing articles with redirects then trying to get them deleted as redirects is not OK: articles should go through an article deletion processes. Insisting that the page be treated as an article seems completely reasonable to me. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing

Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today, upon notifying the user of a discussion I initiated at NPOVN, I noticed that they had called F. William Engdahl an idiot in an edit summary. I left a politely worded message below my initial notice, hoping that they would retract their insult of a BLP. In their first reply, they feigned ignorance of our SUMMARYNO policy, but appeared reasonably polite. However, after I cited WP:ESDONTS and SUMMARYNO to them, the user claimed no wrong-doing and stated that I was merely being ignorant. Subsequently, I explained step-by-step why I thought they were in violation of the SUMMARYNO policy. In response, the user censured (and censored) me, and claimed once again that I was ignorant and uncivil. I don't think my very thorough explanation of their wrong-doing constituted a personal attack, but hey, it's their talk page. I shall refrain from posting on their talk page if they so wish (excepting the ANI notice I will leave promptly). The thing is, the idiot remark still stands in the revision history of F. William Engdahl, and User:Cambial Yellowing left a templated message on my talk page, which in my view constitutes a type of harassment. Nutez (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The applicable policy is WP:BLP. In 2013, the Arbitration Committee ruled The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Misplaced Pages, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. Certainly that applies to edit summaries and accordingly it is unacceptable to call the subject of a BLP an "idiot" in an edit summary. Cambial Yellowing, consider this a warning: Compliance with BLP policy is mandatory, and further infractions may lead to a block. Cullen328 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have revision deleted the edit summary. Cullen328 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

70.68.168.129

70.68.168.129 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

IP appears to be here to "right (what they see as) great wrongs", rather than build an encyclopedia, and it tendentious in doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? FrederalBacon (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind it's right here. Clear POV push. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Please feel free to lengthen if you wish -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone revoked TPA, based off everything, seems like it needs an indef instead of 31 hours. 31 hours isn't going to stop the problem based off of his block appeals. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We do not indef IPs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The user, not necessarily the IP. If this person were registered, they'd probably get an indef NOTHERE block for POV pushing, correct? So how is it any different if they're unregistered? I'm not saying outright indef block the IP, but there needs to be a consideration of "This person is clearly not here to make an encyclopedia, just because we can't indef an IP doesn't mean they should be back on the site tomorrow". FrederalBacon (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a dynamic IP, so it's very likely in a day or so the user that is assigned this IP isn't the same person we have now. The IP was blocked 31 hours, enough time for it to be assigned. If the IP comes back and starts again? Blocked longer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Chekavar page

Reported the user on vandalism page, they told to report this here.The user Arushaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constantly vandalising on the page Chekavar, removing sourced content and replacing his own caste slur words like these : , , to attack a particular caste. He has been engaged in edit war ,,,, even after many warning.From his contributions it is evident that he is a Nair caste vandal to promote his caste and attack and vandalise other caste pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningalonnichpovuka (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) You are obliged to notify the reported party. I have done so for you. It's also good to sign your posts. Otherwise, this seems sanctionable to my non-mod eyes. Kleuske (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kleuske, noted. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

He was given a GS notice by Ponyo for WP:GS/CASTE. It appears he hasn't edited since then. I don't know if any further action is required after the GS notice, until there are further issues, and even then, the fact that this is an area with General Sanctions in place would preclude the need for another ANI, simply a request for sanctions already in place. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock of Nair Community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:tgeorgescu on Reincarnation talk page

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

Hello, User:tgeorgescu has engaged in some WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the Reincarnation talk page. Specifically, this comment directed towards me: "Your arguments are bizarre, pro domo, ad hoc, and ignorant of everything epistemology stands for. It seems that you have never had a course in epistemology, and that's a standard course in any science faculty." I tried to delete per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TALK, but he reverted it. I thought I was okay to delete others comments per WP:TALK as my discussion on the Barbro Karlén page was deleted per the same rule. When I asked tgeorgescu about that, he said a party in the dispute should never delete such comments. So I've now restored the discussion on Barbro's talk page, feel free to delete it per WP:TALK, but also please delete tgeorgescu's personal attack(s) against me. I think he even agrees he shouldn't have commented that, but he said only WP:ANI could actually do it. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP is an well-intended editor, but somehow does not get the point that spiritism and reincarnation are not science, writing Both string theory and reincarnation are science. Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science. Science is not always about explaining or understanding phenomena. Instead, it is the scientific method. Ian Stevenson and Allan Kardec both used the scientific method and came up with astounding results, but that doesn’t mean the results are wrong. My sources are good for this page. Please see AdS/CFT correspondence as proof string theory is in fact 1. Physics and 2. Highly cited physics. Also, I vote James Leininger as first to be added.LightProof1995 (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC), and . They have been warned of discretionary sanctions as of WP:ARBPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand how this may require thinking outside of the box, so I will explain.

Science is about reproducible results.

This is because the scientific method focuses on an experiment that confirms a hypothesis.

Allan Kardec was a skeptic when he interviewed mediums as follows:

He compiled over one thousand questions concerning the nature and mechanisms of spirit communications, the reasons for human life on earth, and aspects of the spiritual realm. He asked those questions to ten mediums, all purportedly unknown to each other, and documented their responses. From these, he concluded that the best explanation was that personalities that had survived death were the source of at least some mediumistic communications. He became convinced that the mediums provided accurate information unknown to themselves or others present (e.g. personal information about deceased individuals); demonstrated unlearned skills such as writing by illiterate mediums, handwriting similar to the alleged communicating personality, and speaking or writing in a language unknown to the medium (xenoglossy and xenography); accurately portrayed a range of personality characteristics of deceased individuals. He compiled the mediums' responses that were consistent and adapted them into a philosophy that he called Spiritism, which he initially defined as "a science that deals with the nature, origin, and destiny of spirits, and their relation with the corporeal world."

So hypothesis -- if I were to interview, say, 100 mediums all unknown to each other, would they also all somehow relate similar ideas about the spirit world? That would be a much better sample than the ten Allan interviewed, but you see my point: ten is still a sample size.

Same thing with Dr. Ian Stevenson and reincarnation. Sure, maybe in the majority of cases he connected the dots himself. But, this is because there are around 20-35 cases that are so foolproof (e.g. James Leininger), the point of gathering the rest of the cases was for the quantity over the quality of them.

Dr. Ian Stevenson's results are also reproducible: I can go find "children recalling past lives", interview them, and eventually find the deceased individual they are remembering. Just because he couldn't explain the science behind it, doesn't mean he didn't prove that 1. Children may remember "past-life memories" and 2. These memories can match up with a deceased individual. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

See? Does not understand their behavior is highly irritating to experienced users. For a start: law of holes. If any proof of lacking WP:CIR was needed, they offered it just above. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that reincarnation is science has no business editing articles on reincarnation, or science for that matter -- since they clearly don't understand it or the scientific method -- or WP:FRINGE subjects in general. LightProof1995 seems to be heading toward a topic ban on science and fringe, which, if it's proposed, I would support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That wouldn't be wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biological_and_health_sciences/Plants&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Vital_articles/Level/5/Physical_sciences/Earth_science&action=history LightProof1995 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

First edit was made specifically for reincarnation fringe pushing on talk for Transgender. Done the same at Childhood gender nonconformity. So potentially add gender issues into a topic ban.

Lightproof seems to have made themself busy with Vital Articles, so they are clearly contributing to the project outside of fringe POV pushes, and are working on science articles in a constructive way, so a complete science ban seems a bit much. But a ban on anything to do with reincarnation or gender issues seems reasonable. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this would be productive. The entire reason for me creating my Misplaced Pages page was because I felt I had to in order to help stop violence against transgender peoples. The transgender community of Misplaced Pages tasked me with writing a "Reincarnation and Gender Dysphoria" section on the Reincarnation page and to mention cultures like the hijra, agenderism, etc. I have been trying to figure out where to put it -- I don't know if it should be its own section entirely, or if it should go under "Reincarnation and science", referencing this study . LightProof1995 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The transgender community of Misplaced Pages tasked me with writing... Can you provide a diff that that really happened? tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transgender&diff=1095305577&oldid=1095276467

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transgender&diff=1095401383&oldid=1095401351

LightProof1995 (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Unconvincing. You conflate folk beliefs with scientific evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not evidence that he transgender community of Misplaced Pages tasked me with writing anything. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there even scientific reliable sources that consider this science? —El Millo (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Omega is an example of a peer-reviewed academic journal that considers this. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry if this bothered you; I genuinely was just trying to explain it. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts here. Surveying people's opinions and beliefs about a thing is not science, no matter how big the sample size. Now, it might be a valid scientific approach to finding information about opinions and beliefs, but it is not a valid way to find out about the thing itself. Finding out about a thing scientifically would involve investigating the thing itself, not opinions and beliefs about the thing. So to investigate reincarnation (or spiritism, or whatever) scientifically, you'd have to investigate reincarnation itself, not investigate people's opinions and beliefs about reincarnation (or spiritism, or whatever). There are around 2.4 billion Christians around the world, for example (way more than your 10 or 100 mediums), but their beliefs provide precisely zero scientific evidence of the truth of Christianity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are bizarre, pro domo, ad hoc, and ignorant of everything epistemology stands for is not about you, but about your arguments. If it were not allowed to judge other users's arguments, any discussion would be impossible. It seems that you have never had a course in epistemology, and that's a standard course in any science faculty goes a bit beyond that, and if it were me who wrote that, I would delete it, but it may be a matter of taste. Nevertheless, you are trying to push your WP:PROFRINGE opinions into articles, and you should not do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Believing in their own pet theory is not the problem; the problem is refusing to admit that their pet theory counts here as WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I admit it is WP:FRINGE, which is why I was discussing on the talk page. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It cannot be "fringe" and "science" at the same time. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Not the correct way of framing it: fringe theories aren't necessarily bad science, and in fact most good and later mainstream scientific theories start out as "fringe" theories, but that's the key point - fringe theories are not yet mainstream theories, and bad theories will remain forever fringe. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple of views which are outliers in respect to the scientific consensus. The point is: I am not being disruptive about those, since I don't misrepresent them as the voice of scientists. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hob Gadling. I am starting to realize that even though my sources are peer-reviewed, and I figured it all out, and can describe it with science to back it up... It doesn't matter because I may be the first on Misplaced Pages to make these connections. So a lack of general awareness just makes it fringe, even if it is true. Still, I'm not convinced the stories of Barbro Karlén and James Leininger, at least, don't deserve a mention. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment on "I figured it all out" and "I may be the first on Misplaced Pages to make these connections". Nobody on Misplaced Pages is allowed to contribute material they have figured out themselves, or make connections themselves (regardless of whether they're the first or not). Someone else, published in reliable sources, has to do the figuring out and make the connections... all we're allowed to do as Misplaced Pages contributors is document the work that others have done, without any analysis or interpretation ourselves. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and no, Barbro Karlén and James Leininger provide nothing remotely reliable in terms of supporting any kind of scientific or factual claims. Their beliefs might belong in bio articles about them, but not as any kind of evidence supporting reincarnation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

LightProof1995 It might help to contextualize what is going on here. You are not the first person who believes passionately in the reality of reincarnation to become active at Misplaced Pages hoping to right the great wrongs that are present here where the encyclopedia is not showing all the "evidence" in favor of it. However, I have found you to be much more collaborative in your approaches to the matter than others and while there seem to be some issues with certain ways you have approached sourcing and WP:NPOV, I have found you to be at least receptive to dialogue which is, as far as I am concerned, miles and miles ahead of most other accounts I've seen arrive here who become active in vaguely (or not-so-vaguely) WP:PROFRINGE directions. I actually think you could be very valuable as an editor in this area if you slow down and try your best to provide sources on the talkpage and propose new edits. Right now, we've got a pretty slanted section on how believers in reincarnation from the US and Europe have hung their hats on various stories and practices that we haven't really described in full detail. What is most glaringly absent is an account of the most notable claimants to past lives. I mentioned one famous one on the talkpage. Barbro Karlén appears to be another, etc. This is where our article is lacking. Of course, the best way to approach this would be to ensure that independent notice of these claimants have been made (preferably not by people who are connected to them or "fellow-travelers" as we might say). But so far I haven't been able to find anyone to take up this project. This could be a good one for you.

As for the UVa Jim Tucker stuff, I think we are doing a fairly good job as it is covering this topic already. I have noticed that reincarnation believers often want to push a bit more WP:WEIGHT to these claims than they probably deserve. Jim Tucker is probably the most famous academic arguing that reincarnation happens, but he's also incredibly marginalized. There are a few people who have commented critically on his work, but unless you are a parapsychologist, it's all pretty dismissive. Our section right now handles that pretty well, perhaps it spends too much time on it.

But, finally, I don't think this post to ANI was a good idea. You have to develop a thick skin when dealing with controversial topics like this. People are going to write things that may ruffle your feathers. I definitely think that reincarnation is an extravagant belief for which there is no evidence that rises above the anecdotal or the facilely arguable. Y'know, the sort of thing where I can point to obvious simpler explanations than (1) the existence of a soul that (2) is somehow separated from biological life and (3) passes from living human to living human in some conservative fashion. I understand that you strongly believe in some version of these three premises, but when you are talking to people that take issue with one to three of these proposals, it's going to come across sometimes like you feel like your personal beliefs are being "attacked". They're not. It's just the rhetoric of how we talk about ideas and the criticism that we might have for how some people might treat them.

Too much posted here, but all this is to say I would recommend you withdraw this filing and return to the talkpage offering some sources and and some text and let the conversation begin. It may not go the way you want, but there may be some sources you will find and some ways to describe some of the claims that are missing in the article that we can handle.

jps (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks jps, see my reply below, I really appreciate your help -- this filing can be withdrawn. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks jps. I will state, as I was planning on doing so anyway, I don’t care about deleting tgeorgescu’s comment anymore per their statement: “I think OP is a well-intentioned editor…” this is more than apology enough for me personally and I appreciate these words from tgeorgescu.

I could respond to their comment lightheartedly something like “well, you’re right, I’ve actually never had a class in epistemology besides a couple of lectures” but thought I was supposed to just delete “unproductive” comments like the one they made and cite WP:TALK because that’s what Hob did to me on Barbro’s talk page. Tgeorgescu showed me something saying deleting others’ comments shouldn’t be done unless it is by WP:ANI which is why I left both you and Hob the message this “could be” related to you two — Hob and I both were deleting your comment on Barbro’s talk page, jps, and while I also don’t care if that conversation is there or not, from what I understand, per tgeorgescu’s statement on my talk page, it shouldn’t be up to me or Hob… I now feel like whatever I respond to tgeorgescu could be deleted by anyone “per WP:TALK” even though epistemological discourse may be the only way we’ll actually be able to improve the Reincarnation page. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a crucial difference: we don't discuss if reincarnation is right or wrong, true or false. Misplaced Pages has no position thereupon. All we say is that it has not been scientifically shown to be valid. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Pehlivanova, M., Janke, M. J., Lee, J., & Tucker, J. B. (2018). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1523266
2. Jim Tucker, The Case of James Leininger: An American Case of the Reincarnation Type, University of Virginia School of Medicine, 2016.
3. National Public Radio, "Searching for the Science Behind Reincarnation", Podcast, 2014, https://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation

Apostolic Catholic Church

User Rafaelosornio keeps revisionizing the Article, disregarding wikipedia's rule of reference and notability, he keeps deleting subjects after subjects. Also disregarding my chats on his user pager.

I wish that action should be taken. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploreky (talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks like a content dispute. Can you both not come to some agreement on the article talk page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The user Ploreky places content not in accordance with the referred sources. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

24.196.8.129's bizarre music-related article vandalism

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

24.196.8.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Just a few days off their most recent block, this user has returned to violate BLP and break infoboxes, introduce errors into articles and generally continue to be disruptive. Without fail, all of this user's edits have bizarre and meaningless edit summaries.

Might be worth considering a longer block. Zudo 09:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for a month. If they come back in September I'd block for six months to a year. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive unsourced/poorly sourced content restoration

Molave Quinta, DoraExp

The first user above is repeatedly restoring unsourced/poorly sourced content while ignoring warnings for the same. They have restored such content six times in the past week, first twice at the page Naqshbandi on 4 August , , which they were warned/informed about , and where they also raised a personalized talk page complaint , before having the situation explained (again) by @HistoryofIran . Then on 8 August, by means of what I can only assume were tracking my contributions, they arrived at Ashura and Passover, where they proceeded to again restore unsourced/poorly sourced content , , leading me to issue a final, level-4 warning . On 9 August, they went ahead and reverted again anyway , this time tangling up subsequent meticulous editing at Ashura by another editor @Ealinggirl1954 - their seeming inability to partially or selectively revert raising further basic competence questions. At this point I tried raising an advanced vetting report, but to no avail. In a final odd twist, after I made a final attempt to remove the poorly sourced content and restore Ealinggirl1954's edits, the second editor above, DoraExp, comes online for the first time since January and makes a similar, indiscriminate revert to restore the poorly sourced content and undo Ealinggirl1954's edits again. Although I'm not 100% sure what to make of this, the behaviour and timing are odd. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This reminds of my previous report and SPI . Random users/IPs appearing out of nowhere and making the same disruption in religious topics. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DoraExp's contribution history screams out sleeper sock. nableezy - 15:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to be accused of jumping to conclusions, but yeah, as editors frequently note: if it quacks like a duck... Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and edit warring by User: ZaniGiovanni in many articles

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

P.S. I have removed large sections of this report due to concerns that it was TLDR

Introduction

User: ZaniGiovanni has been engaging in edit wars and disruptive editing in many articles (as evidenced by their talk page, riddled with warnings and concerns by veteran editors among others (just a few examples This report is mainly related to three articles (Eastern Anatolia Region, Lahmacun, and Cilicia).

What I did in the Eastern Anatolia Region article

• Removed the Armenian translation of the article, which was "Western Armenia", and not "Eastern Anatolia Region" . This article has nothing do with Armenia nor Wikiproject Armenia

• Removed the historical parts of the article (which solely mentions Armenia/Armenians, and no other ethnic groups which inhabited the region throughout history, further proving the POV-pushing prevalent in the article)

Why did you make such changes?

This article is about a Turkish administrative region formed in 1941 (per First Geography Congress, Turkey and). As evidenced by all other articles relating to the Geographical regions of Turkey, these articles are not about the history of the land in which the administrative region is found on (see Marmara Region as an e.g., just one of the articles on the administrative divisions of Turkey). There's separate articles for that; these information are irrelevant to this article. This article is solely about the administrative region founded in 1941, it's terrain, population, etc, and information *beyond* the aforementioned year. The article's talk page is riddled with concerns like this (e.g.).

What happened?

ZaniGiovanni undid my content removals. Soon after, I raised the issue in the talk page; there were three participants in said conversation; ZaniGiovanni, myself, and BerkBerk68, who had also expressed the same concerns (e.g. )

They were the only person to oppose this change; and as such I reminded them that consensus does not require unanimity, that they were refusing to get the point, and that no one is obligated to satisfy them. Thus, I had told them that I would be restoring the edit, and that if they attempted to edit war, an ANI report was to be made regarding his disruptive editing

On to the Lahmacun article, what did I do?;

• Added that Ayfer Bartu (the person making the *controversial* claims) *claims* these statements; they shouldn't be accepted as facts due to the controversial nature of the claim.

Why did you make such changes?

The claims are controversial, and contains only a single source. Even if the claim was uncontroversial, NPOV must be preserved to uphold the encyclopedic nature of Misplaced Pages; and in this case, NPOV was seriously lacking (per WP:YESPOV).

What happened?

ZaniGiovanni claims that I had cast doubt on the source and reverted the edit. I undid this, because I had not cast doubt on the source, I rephrased the sentencing to make it more NPOV I performed this revert recently and haven't encountered a problem as of yet. However, by the nature of ZaniGiovanni's persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, I expect my edit to be reverted once more; which is also why I've included it here

On to the Cilicia article, what did OTHER users do?;

• Just a few examples of users stating that Cilicia is a region located in Anatolia (specifically southern Anatolia, Turkey)

What did ZaniGiovanni do?

• Replaced "Anatolia" with "Levant"

What did I do?

• Added that Cilicia is indeed a region located in Anatolia (Turkey).

Why did I do this?

The Levant is a much more broader term and encompasses a much larger geography, plus the borders of the Levant do not include all of Cilicia's, either. Thus, labelling the region as being a part of the Levant is not only plain wrong, but disinformation as it is being done on purpose

Conclusion

This is just an few examples of this user's (ZaniGiovanni's) disruptive and unconstructive editing. Thus, I suggest a topic ban on all Turkey-related articles for this user, because they are clearly disruptively editing many articles related to the country and are failing to make a positive impact on said articles; rather, they are doing the polar-opposite. Thanks. zenzyyx_

References

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20120331031032/http://web.sakarya.edu.tr/~ayigit/ESERLER/TRbolgeayirm.pdf
2. Yasar, Okan; Seremet, Mehmet (2007-05-15). "A Comparative Analysis Regarding Pictures Included in Secondary School Geography Textbooks Taught in Turkey". International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. 16 (2): 157–188. doi:10.2167/irgee216.0. ISSN 1038-2046.
3. "Map of the Levant". World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2022-08-10.
4. "Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Roman_Empire_-_Cilicia_%28125_AD%29.svg". www.google.com. Retrieved 2022-08-10. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

• comment: looking at Eastern Anatolia Region, one would notice that zenzyyx is the one edit-warring to keep the article the way they deem it should be while the discussion is still ongoing, while telling others that they are edit warring and being disruptive. failing to make a positive impact? You threatened to drag every editor you disagree with to ANI. Fully ignoring any point made in the discussion. - Kevo (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I already explained my reason for making my edits above, please feel free to read it.

"You threatened to drag every editor you disagree with to ANI"

I don't know what you mean by "every editor", it was only yourself and ZaniGiovanni. I explained my reasons for this, too. Again, please feel free to read my explanation for doing so above.

"Fully ignoring any point made in the discussion"

Never happened. I wasn't the one relentlessly Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling, or just stonewalling in general.

Also, let me remind you that you were the one who undid my edits and edit warred despite knowing nothing of what was discussed on the talk page zenzyyx

• I don't think you understand what stonewalling means. Talk:Eastern_Anatolia_Region#Formatted_as_an_attack_article_+_unneeded_and_irrelevant_information_included – this discussion / comments and your subpar at best arguments for blanking chunks of information have been answered by me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I know what stonewalling means. It seems that you do not, which explains your edit warring, disruptive editing, and relentless preservation of the status-quo, especially in the Eastern Anatolia Revion article, which is in fact irrelevant and has been explained multiple times why it is. zenzyyx

• My interaction with this user is limited to Eastern Anatolia Region, where they disruptively removed sourced content about Armenians and Armenian genocide from the article without providing any policy based valid arguments , , , , , and having no consensus (later in the talk page, Zenzyyx argues 2 editors against 1 means consensus, ignoring strength of the arguments. Another user also reverted them so even by their own definition there is no consensus for their edits , ).

I made sure to contact them in their talk page and addressing their mini essay "edit summary" replies, asking them to use the talk page instead as a means of communication. I also made sure to answer all the arguments raised on talk despite being at work, see Talk:Eastern_Anatolia_Region#Formatted_as_an_attack_article_+_unneeded_and_irrelevant_information_included. This user doesn't succeed in providing valid arguments for their edits, so they just resort to reporting an opposing user.

Regarding Lahmacun article, Zenzyyx edit wars and cast doubt on a reliable source by violating MOS:CLAIM, , .

If anything, zenzyyx would be lucky if this 10,000+ essay doesn't get boomeranged, as they completely lack self-awarness of their own actions, specifically WP:DIS, WP:EDITWAR, WP:POV.

p.s. Most of my edits on Misplaced Pages are reverts of poorly justified / disruptive edits (as seen by the examples you brought up). Regarding Cilicia article, if you had any content disagreements with me, why is that the first time I'm hearing about it is here in ANI? Just more of a proof of your battleground mentality and intimidation threats to drag content issues to ANI when someone disagrees with you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I did not argue nor even suggest that 2v1 meant consensus. Anyone is free to read this edit.

• I had already explained the content removal both in the talk page and here. You were reported here because of your edit warring and disruptive editing in many articles.

• It looks like you've completely ignored what I've stated above. I did not cast doubt on the source, please read that section again.

• I am not the only one who has disagreed with your POV-pushing edits (replacing Anatolia with Levant). Many users have (which I've linked just some examples above). This is just one out of many articles highlighting your disruptive editing and edit warring. zenzyyx

Please be more concise at ANI, this is a clusterfuck and way too long for any uninvolved editor to discern the actual point of it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

1) I mean what are you trying to even say? That you didn't have consensus for blanking chunks of sourced valid content, and the discussion is still ongoing? And that you're now reporting one of the users opposing to you?

2) Nope, even others have to correct after your POV mess, see edit by Schazjmd

3)Who are these "many users" you keep referencing? And why none opened a talk discussion at the very least about these supposed ANI worhty diffs of mine from that article? Why do you keep dragging content here? Especially when there is an ongoing discussion where you still haven't shown a valid reason for blanking entire sections and edit-warring over it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

1) No, please read what I wrote again.

2) How was that a POV mess? I made the wording more neutral. It looks like Schazjmd has made it even more neutral, this is great.

3) I had already referenced the edits of said users. Feel free to check them. This is the first time I've made an ANI report, what do you mean by "Why do you keep dragging content here?" ? Once more, I've explained my reasons above for removing these sections. I don't think you've read them. zenzyyx

First of all, learn how to WP:INDENT. Secondly, this comment alone shows your complete lack of understanding of NPOV, as also evident by your editing pattern;

How was that a POV mess? I made the wording more neutral. It looks like Schazjmd has made it even more neutral, this is great.

Apparently, according to you, casting doubt on WP:RS and violating MOS:CLAIM, , then edit-warring over your own disruptive edit , means "more neutral". I rest my case. Thanks to Schazjmd correcting after you, the section looks good now . But in your essay report, you somehow brought this article against me as evidence of something?

Regarding the core dispute I had with this user, Eastern Anatolia Region, uninvolved users can easily take a look at the article history and see who's edit-warring . And you still have no consensus to remove valid and sourced content that you tried to remove many times, with subpar talk arguments all of which have been answered. I think I'm done engaging with your essay clusterfuck "report". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I had failed to indent most of my comments. This has been fixed now.

Neither WP:MOS nor WP:CLAIM has been violated by myself in the Lahmacun article. I had simply reworded the section to make it more neutral; you reverted said attempts to NPOV the section.

Uninvolved users can also feel free to read my explanations above for removing the content in the Eastern Anatolia Region article, and the explanations in the article's talk page. Do not act like I'm the one edit warring; I have avoided doing so two times, by firstly creating another talk topic on the article's talk page, and also by posting this here after edit warring on the opposite side continued. zenzyyx

User:zenzyyx requested that I provide a third opinion. I have looked at this report, but it is Too Long, Didn't Read. What I can tell is that User:zenzyyx is unhappy about the edits made by User:ZaniGiovanni. Many of us are unhappy about something. I don't intend to finish reading this overly long report. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)