Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:17, 21 September 2009 editSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,960 edits →Disruptive and extremely uncivil editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:47, 19 January 2025 edit undoYngvadottir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users50,705 edits →Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s): C is closest but I'd rather see restriction to their user talk and their user space. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF. 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 600K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 565 |counter = 1176
|algo = old(24h) |algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics==
{{atop
| result = It looks like everything has been dealt with here. ] (]/]) 18:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
}} }}
<!--
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:U
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.


]'s uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it ''is'' problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
-->


Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
== Is ] a ]?? ==


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
The following stems from edit by ], an issue which here very recently. The fact that "''the Holocaust''" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "''Holocaust denial''", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the ''Jews'' during WW2.


WP:NPA
Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Misplaced Pages tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but , and then amending it with , frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only , but tacitly suggests that Steve is making ], then trying to find sources to support them. Well, , in fact.


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
Judging from Steve's other edits (and ]) such as ] tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention ] very recently written item or ], or what can only be described as a attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. ] (]) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with you on a good many points, but what exactly are you suggesting we do here? <font color="green">]</font>] 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Profanity
::I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Misplaced Pages's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. ] (]) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't think a community ban discussion would get us anywhere, nor would it be all that constructive. We haven't eliminated other options yet, so I suggest we use them. How about an ]? <font color="green">]</font>] 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it ] that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. ] (]) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW ] (]) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
::Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward. How on '''''earth''''' is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's ] acceptable? ] (]) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not a matter for AN/I, which deals w/ incipient problems that require admins to solve. ] (]) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate. If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang. Next?--] (]) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::How can one not use the term "holocaust denier" when dealing with the article ]? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
I've had a good night and have not yet gotten any sleep, so I will keep this short.


Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
You paint a very good one-sided story William. I do mean that. Note of course that neutral observers appear to disagree with your one-sided portrayal and aren't hesitant to say so quite straightly. Your comment above (to those who took the time to review your concerns), "Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward" should be understood as evidence of the weakness of your claims. Their comments above explicitly testify of their literacy in this matter. You have no evidence to show otherwise, and you have no cause to insinuate their negligence in that aspect.


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
WilliamH wrote: "How on '''''earth''''' is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable?" - Your linkage to my subspace (which I on rare occasion use in certain mundane ways) pointed to a draft for an unrelated topic. How do you conjecture a connection between this topic and that one? If you are building an overall case against me, please do so: Elicit help from others and put together some kind of comprehensive report on my behaviour. Not only would I welcome one, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate every weakness in your claims, arguments, and conceptions, and will do so with gusto and sarcasm in full measure to even the slightest vexatiousness shown to me. Your title for this thread already strikes me as a bit vexatious.


Unicivil
I'm going to bed. -]] 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
:I think we can ] the thread title was meant to be benign. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
:: I always AGF, but I would still prefer that the thread title be changed such that not even the slightest degree of slander remain. -]] 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I have made the title more clear in that it is about the article and you, rather than somehow implying that you might ascribe to the theory. I assume this is better. <font color="green">]</font>] 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'd just like to point out that the thread title is completely benign, and all suggestions otherwise are tremendous assumptions of bad faith. ] (]) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:::This thread is rife with assertions of bad faith. I don't believe they all need pointing out. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Contact on user page attempted
A few people have checked the discussion page and note that the discussion seems less heated. Indeed. But this is beside the point. The question - and really, the only question for AN/I (as Protonk points out, this page is dedicated to specific kinds of problems) - is: is ] a ]? The thing about disruptive editors is, you cannot make a judgement based on just one glance. By definition, disruptive editing manifests itself through a pattern of edits across time or across several articles. That is why WilliamH provided a number of edit diffs. To those who say things have quieted down, I would point out this: Stevertigo has dominated discussion on the Holodcaust Denial talk page for quite some time, occupying quite a bit of space, and all this discussion has lead to not one single improvement of the article. Moreover, it seems to me that the rest of the participants in the discussion do not see any point to this lengthy discussion, do not feel that it is leading to any improvement of the article. This is an abuse of the talk page, which is meant to discuss improvements, and a perfect example of "disruptive" editing since Stevertigo's repeated comments, which never engage what other editors actually point out, is simply displacing any constructive discussion. Stevertigo's MO is to make things up, call it a "concept," and then refuse to provide any verifiable sources. He is a disruptive editor ''at best'' - the worse possibility is that he is here to push his own personal point of view with total disregard to our NOR policy. Here is another example . ] | ] 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
That was recently ''archived'' yet is on this ''very same, not yet resolved'' issue, is an indication of the level of disruption. ] | ] 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced Steve is completely gone, yet. As I've seen, he is improving little by little, as we make it apparent that pieces of what he's doing aren't acceptable. I don't know that we can change him completely, but neither do I know that we cannot. Steve is capable of taking the hint from this thread, I know, and is capable of changing his behavior. For the moment, it would be best if we issued a warning about some specific behaviors (such as starting talk page discussions whose purpose is not the improvement of the article) and see if he does in fact stop. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
::Indeed, I am not "gone yet," Lifebaka - I was editing here five years before you showed up. I've yet to see anything more than a few insinuations and complaints, so I don't quite understand how anyone would think I would just go away and leave things in a depressed state. I likewise don't understand how some people can go though life thinking everyone else is just stupid, but that's a little off topic. Anyway, I've written down a few thoughts regarding this thread and others, and put them in ]. It's a bit ''fluid'' and maybe wanders a bit, but the gist is fairly straightforward.


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: By the way, I appreciate the title change. Now any slander therein is nearly unperceptible, and nowhere near as obvious. -]] 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


:Think this calls for a fierce ] slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a ] according to ], as this is just an ] and frankly, I don't see ''direct'' personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as {{tq|some diffs from the past few days}} are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Lifebaka didn't mean "gone" as in "retired" - s/he means that you aren't beyond hope, and that you've been learning and improving by mistakes. Sorry, that was a confusing sentence, could have raised ] ] ] ]. ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:My experience with Stevertigo has, unfortunately, been pretty unchanged over a number of years. He generally shows up at an article and decides to put his own unique and idiosyncratic spin on whatever is there, either by modifying text to suit his own opinions, or by adding his own mini-essays. Though he has been editing for many years, as far as I can tell the ] and ] policies have made little, if any, impression on him.
:@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
:Here is a perfect recent example of this; he showed up at the ] article, and decided to insert his own . Aside from its tangential nature, note that (as is typical) the essay has not one source in it. As is also typically the case, on any article he is editing that is actually being watched by other editors, his insertions are deleted. As is also typically the case, he edit wars to keep them in. When defeated, he , without any accompanying commentary.
:Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ]&thinsp;] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thus he showed up at the Holocaust denial article, with his own personal opinions of what the article should discuss - as it turned out, mainly a digression into which groups are covered by the phrase "The Holocaust" - something that is actually discussed in Misplaced Pages's article on ]. After days of circular discussion, including several suggestions by him that we should all be working together on a ] article, he then proposed completely re-writing the lede, focusing in particular on his original point, and making his proposal without actually basing it on any discernible sources. Long exposure has taught me that every talk page discussion with him eventually comes to the question "Stevertigo, upon what sources do you base your opinions"? Constantly hammering on that statement usually makes him go away; unfortunately, in this case, many editors were unfamiliar with him, and gave him various openings to continue his digressions on his own unusual ideas. He has posted several thousand words on the Holocaust denial Talk: page without, as far as I can tell, bringing even one source that actually discusses Holocaust denial. At the least, this is extremely ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input.
::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}}
{{collapse top|title=Minor discussion on use of ChatGPT in Lardle's user page}}
@]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Just out of curiosity, was there any attempt, on your part or anyone elses, to ascertain what was missing in the ] article? Indeed, as the term is said to not just refer to the Hitler fallacy, but to the Nazi one as well, I.. conceptualized.. a need for a treatment of the Socialism fallacy, and thought that article was the proper place, given the apparent ambiguity in the ''ad Nazium'' term.
::look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @], you should familiarise yourself with ]. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|BarntToust}} I would appreciate if you did not derail noticeboard threads by rudely browbeating participants about seemingly irrelevant(?) issues. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think I'm gone from this board because of other work I'm focusing on regarding NIИ's ] and other stuff. Ad Hominems are what I did, and pointing out questionable behaviour (IE unexplained, self-contradictory AI slop text) from the user page of the currently 1 week-blocked Lardle who ] actually seemed pretty helpful, as literally everyone else in this trainwreck of a thread brought up unrelated stuff (Lardle's unrelated COVID conspiracy mongering) instead of discussing Hob. I do admit I went on tangents through this already derailed mega thread, but I'm among others not much worse for the derailing. I mean, how many ANI reports start with a fellow reporting "This guy is using the word 'bullshit' on talk pages" and end with that fellow getting a broadly construed TBAN that they violate mere moments after implementation? Yeah, I'm again, I'm gone to work on other stuff. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' ]? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word ''bullshit'', which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills"]] seems pretty temperate. And so on. ] &#124; ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).


:I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at ] where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. ] (]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: So, I take it there was no effort on your part to ascertain what was ''missing'' in that article. Hm? Fine. But in the additions of others, do you at least attempt to ascertain whether or not the addition is actually true? Encyclopedic? Factual? Well-written? On-point? Relevant? Material? Substantive? Accurate? An improvement?
:My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - ] (]) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


Hob Gadling failing to yield to ], apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: It strikes me at the very best "''counterproductive''" that you and others interpret RS in accord with only inane and destructive modalities that at best resemble deletionism. Keep in mind the context, these are articles in which you yourself neglect to detect any omission, and yet you claim to assert some kind of considered editorial judgment in simply deleting additions to them?


:Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: "Disruptive editing," indeed. -]] 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Propose''' serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at ]. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Steve, the way article writing is supposed to work is this: First, you find sources. Then, you write based on the sources. Then, you cite the sources you used. The issue appears to be that you are ''not'' beginning by finding sources, but instead writing and then attempting to cherry-pick sources which will support your text. Regardless of why you choose to operate this way, it gives the appearance that you are pushing a view. Please find sources as a first step.
*:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Additionally, regarding the removal of unsourced content, ] stipulates that ''any'' unsourced contentious material should be removed. You shouldn't be too terribly surprised if, when you add material to a page without sources, it gets removed.
:::The new title you chose is... Odd. The first title was far more neutral. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) *::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] has been around a long time and made many contributions. He isn't some troll who suddenly appeared. So whence this talk of banning him? Can't we tolerate people with unpopular perspectives? Do we all have to be mainstream here? If so, then who should we start kicking out: the gays? the libertarians? the Christians? Please let me know, so I can align myself with the Grand Inquisitor, and feel like a good person.--] (]) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
*::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


*As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Very interesting perspective, Anthon. Keep in mind also the issue is not about "mainstream," its about this obtuse methodology of cobbling articles together from "reliable sources" such that they don't always make actual sense. In some cases it's quite deliberately so. So some people of course are worried that any future requirement of "making sense" will inevitably cause localized and other special-point-of-view concepts to implode. In fact its just a matter of time.
*:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Extended discussion}}
{{od}}
Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. ] (]) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Just to forewarn you, when someone informs The Grand Inquisitor that you were just being sarcastic, he'll probably issue a standard proclamation and declare you "]" as well. -]] 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things {{tq|bullshit}} and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is ]. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 ] + ] debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience.
:::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Uh, Anthon, to be clear, Stevertigo is a ''troll'' who has been around over five years. The first encounter with him I recall (I could well be blocking out others) was when he showed up at "anti-Semitism" and argued that since Arabs are semites, anti-Semitism includes hatred of Arabs. This is the ''paradigm'' for how he operates and it has two major components. First, he claims he is using a conceptual method, but what he is really doing is taking actual concepts and breaking them down to parts that are actually not relevant to the concept. In the case of the name ], he went so far as to do this with ''letters'' of the alphabet. It is true that Arabic is a semetic language. But "anti-Semitism" was explicitly coined to refer exclusively to hatred of Jews. Anyone who has done what jayjg and others call source-based research ... what I just call "research" ... would know this. As i pointed out on the Holocaust denial page, If Stevertigo really followed his method consistenly, he would be quite surprised to discover what the word "blowjob" really means. If Sgtevertigo really were commited to his "conceptual" approach, he would go the the article on blowjobs, and explain that since blow means a forceful expulsion of air, and a job is form of work, we need a section on people who blow out air for a living. This would be a violation of ] were it not just so ridiculous on its face. Anyway, the point is that he has done no research, he has no sources to support his claims, in the end it is simply what Stevertigo ''thinks'' a word or phrase should mean that he wants to go into the article. This of course ''never'' stands up to scrutiny, but Stevertio argues the point for days, weeks, and this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Second major element: Stevertigo has a clear preference for screwing with articles that have to do with Jews or topics sensitive to Jews. Although by his method we would have a long debate at the page on blowjobs, or "logrolling" or "parkway" or "driveway," Stevertigo prefers "Anti-Semitism," "Yeshu" "Ehud" and "Holocaust Denial." What do these things have in common? They are all issues sensitive to Jews, and Stevertigo has never done an iota of research concerning them. His is a simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism. He has never directly insulted any Jews at ikipedia. But if left to his own devices, slowly, every article here relating to matters of Jewish interest or concern would be corrupted into meaningless garbage. I do not know if this is because this is his actual objective, or because he knows that it will draw some of the Jewish editors at Misplaced Pages, and force them to waste their time on the talk pages explaining over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why he is wrong.


:Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. ] (]) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please note my excessive use of "over and over and over." It is '''not''' a personal attack as such. It did not violate any content policy. But can anyone deny that its only effect is to irritate? This is Stevertigo in essense. It is why he is a disruptive editor. That he has gotten away with it for five years is no defense. In no other kind of violation, would we say that "well, he has been violating NPOV for five years so it must be okay." The only time editors say "Well he has been doing it for five years so stop complaining" is in the case of disruptive editors. That is because disruptive editors, by constantly shifting their targets, and by merely disrupting, rather than attacking, are generaly detected only by a small group of editors who for one reason or another (in this case, Jews or non-Jews who care about Jewish related articles) keep encountering this editor. But we have a policy, ] that describes Stevertigo's MO almost to a tee! Folks, this is precisely ''why'' we have a DE policy. Generous editors here will say "let's give him anothe chance." That is because they weren't around for the over a month long "anti-semitism" saga (in which, after Stevertigo started introducing neologisms to support his argument, and created articles for his own neologisms, and was told, No, Steve, you can't create your own word and then create a Wikipdia article about your word, that is a neologism, and then we had to explain to him what the word "neologism" meant, then he went and created an article on neologisms! I kid you not! It is amost funny). But if we let him go this time, in a few nonths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for ]. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a ''different'' group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's ''use'' it here. ] | ] 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


:*I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) {{tq|bullshit}} to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that ''that'' was what led Lardlewarmers to try and , a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward ] situation. --] (]) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::One could take all of that, substitute "Obama" and "liberals" in place of "Jews" and "antisemitism", and we would have an accurate description of Stevertigo's antics that led to ] as well. Sooner or later the ones with the proverbial mops around here have eat the spinach and say ''"that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!"'' ] (]) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a ''chronic'' and ''ongoing'' habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (]) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. ] (]) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed ''I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type''. As the Alien above said, you '''{{tq|Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.}}''' now ]. ]&thinsp;] 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to ], the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the ] contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ], as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the ''content'', not attacking the person (]). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.] (]) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::For the record I do ''agree with you'' that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been ] you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing ] or ], rather we depend on ] and ] to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to {{tq|steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person}}. However, that is not what I read in that . Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (]) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. ]&thinsp;] 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a {{tq|lesser offense}}. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Slrubenstein, most likely you'd get someone to act if you put some examples around, other than just the Ehud one. For instance, can you link me the threads from Anti-Semitism that you're talking about? Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


:Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*I recently attempted to Stevertigo on ] that his repetitive arguing was becoming disruptive; he responded by misconstruing what I'd written, wikilawyering over policy, trying to score points, and making some rather odd allusions that I might be in off-wiki contact with other editors there to silence him (, , ). I don't intend to second-guess why he does this, but regardless of the reasons the resulting disruption, bad feeling, and general unpleasantness caused by his actions are what matter. I would support removing his editing privileges; although a topic ban would be my first choice, I think his interests are wide-ranging enough that this would be ineffective. Note that because I consider myself marginally involved on Holocaust denial, I don't feel comfortable blocking Stevertigo myself. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of ''this specific'' pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ]&thinsp;] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I am in the diffs.
:::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. ] (]) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is a deeply silly comment. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 01:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}}
:::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ]&thinsp;] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way...
:::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed.
:::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted.
:::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds.
:::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history.
:::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ]&thinsp;] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ]&thinsp;] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits.
::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ]&thinsp;] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ]&thinsp;] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ]&thinsp;] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ]&thinsp;] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


{{reflist}}
*I deplore this dogpile.<p>The consensus is against Stevertigo in a number of areas, and he has some controversial views. He also occasionally takes an unfortunate tone with people. But this AN/I thread is totally unwarranted.—] ]/] 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Can you provide an example of a "controversial view" he has? The problem I have, and have raised, is not that he has controversial views, but that he is always promoting ''his own'' views. Misplaced Pages allows controversial views, as long as they are significant and come from notable sources. Not our own ideas, right? ] | ] 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


===Send to AE?===
While I greatly appreciate the "dogpile" conceptualization, S Marshall, I have to disagree about it being "unwarranted," when in fact it's ridiculous. Particularly so when they don't bother to treat my arguments seriously to begin with, and then, instead of dealing with the concepts, they accuse me of "wikilawyering," which is precisely what this report itself actually is.


Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to ] since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Note how easy it was to deal with William, who filed this report?


:Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
Slrubenstein wrote: "It is true that Arabic is a semetic language." - Actually, that's not ''accurate''.
:That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::FYI ] is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
:::::It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - ] (]) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. ] (]) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-] (] | ] | ]) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why ] is policy.
PS: Wrote some responses. May submit later.
::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. ] (]) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) -- Open thread below. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


===Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers===
:Lifebaka asks for some more links. Here are two:. I must point out that archives from back then are sketchy - some articles were deleted, and then recreated when people had more research; we didn't have the same procedures for keeping records or archives of everything. In archive 4 of the anti-Semitism talk, Stevertigo makes his argument that Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary so the article cannot be just a definition of "anti-Semitism." Fair enough. On this I agree fully. Here is where we differ: i think that instead of just defining the term, we need to see what sources exist concerning its history and the sociology of anti-Semitism, or whatever other research there has been, if any. Steve's approach is to apply his own brand oflogic, and this is used to make his own points (note: what is wrong is not that they are controvesial, but that they are ''his'' i.e. an editor's). In archive 4 he claims that anti-semitism has two meanings: first, it means hatred of Jews. Second, it is a term used to attack people who disagree with Jews. Uh, well, you can see how Jews might take exception to this second meaning of "anti-Semitism." Now, there may well be people who are anti-Zionists yet who are accused of anti-Semitism - this in fact is now the subject of a couple of articles, all backed up by research. Again, my problem with Steve's argument is that he is relying on his own argument, not research. In archive 6 he refers to himself, ironically I am sure, as an "anti-Semite." I really do not believe that he thinks he is an anti-Semite or was confessing to be an anti-Semite, I am merely pointing out that six years ago he was aware that there were other editors who found his views anti-Semitic. In archive six there is another classic example of his using his own kind of logic, rather than research: anti means opposed to, so anti-Semitism must mean, opposed to Semites, including Arabs. I and RK and Danny argued strenuously that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred. RK points out that the person who coined the term meand, "Jew hatred." And here is the crucial thing: Stevertigo says it does not matter what the inventor of the word meant, words have meanings determined by logic. As RK points out, the reason that the inventor of the term is important is because there is extensive published historical research on the historical meaning of the term. Steve's insistence on logic is an insistence on his own beliefs. I am sorry I could not provide edit difs but it is hard with my connection to go back six years to find edit difs, but these archives are pretty short - I believe they are incomplete - so just search a bit and you will find all the pertinant stuff. Note: there was a separate archive for anti-Semitism talk, I do not know if there was a separate article or just some talk was being archived back then under a different system. The point is, those archived talk pages are all blank and I cannot recover the content, so some talk is missing. ] | ] 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|status=Topic ban imposed|1=By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, {{u|Lardlegwarmers}} is ] from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}


A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a ] to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the ] remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a ] in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities.
:Lifebaka, here is another link, to an article ''written entirely by our boy, Stevertigo.''. It is pure crap. Let me be clear: it is not his "controversial views." It is his ''bullshit''. I really am waiting for an example of some meaningful contribution to Misplaced Pages. Anyway, his article on a neologism that he himself invented is a perfect example of what I have been saying about his MO, just making stuff up and calling it logic to justify why he didn't need to do any research. ] | ] 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
=== (continued) ===
*'''Oppose''' - Seems unnecessary and retaliatory. I say that even considering Hob Gadling a friend of mine. ] (]) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The user is basically a ] who looking at their editing history, their basically sole purpose to edit Misplaced Pages is to aggressively POVPUSH about lableak on talkpages, a topic they can't even edit the main page of because they don't have ECP. They're not the only offender, but they are major one. Their contributions are only raising the heat and frankly do not improve the topic area. ] (]) 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This is not a SPA. I’ve been editing on Misplaced Pages for a month or two, focusing some of my attention on the lab leak hypothesis because the article itself would benefit from a more balanced presentation of the topic, especially the broader social and political implications of the theory, based on reliable sources. For example, the article's suggestion that the lab leak hypothesis foments racism is simply not verified. Politicians and extremists have taken advantage of the hypothesis for their own reasons, but it's otherwise a viable scientific hypothesis. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) I've been on the talk page helping to sift through a lot of the original research and the sources (a lot of them) that don't actually say what people are alleging they say. Also, I have been trying to find some kind of consensus for filling in the conspicuous gaps where there ought to be information about notable non-scientific events like coverage of the notable U.S. Congress committee that focused on the lab leak idea and made major headlines in the media--and it's completely omitted from the article. I've worked to clean up the articles where they use journalistic sources to verify biomedical information. And I'm dealing with helping to sort out this chronic name-calling where there should be civil dialogue. In a separate topic, I've been working on fixing an obvious BLP violation where the article talk page consensus might be showing a bit of resistance to the site's policy itself. ] (]) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' pro-fringe single purpose accounts are bad for the project. ] (]) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' - What exactly is the reason to do this here? If jps wishes to file a vague ANI complaint against LLW (a new editor), there is a legitimate process for that which would look a lot less like witness intimidation. - ] (]) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Honestly, take a step back. You're accusing a long-term editor of anti-Semitic views and being involved in a plot to corrupt every Jewish-related article on Misplaced Pages. ''That'' I think is bullshit. The link you just provided was from 2003. ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "{{tq|If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess. If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in}}" very heavily indicates your own POV inclinations regarding scientific topics. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I provided that link because another editor explicitly requested I provide the link ...I explained this. ] | ] 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Note to closer: Palpable is another lableak POVPUSHING SPA. They only made about 70 edits between their account creation in 2006 and 2022, when their editing shifted to be basically solely arguing about lableak on talkpages for over 2 years at this point. ] (]) 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The behavior in Archive 4 is similar, yes. I cannot find any place where Steve states/asserts/implies that antisemitism is hatred of Semites (including various Arab groups) in any of the archives, though this may merely be because the archives are incomplete (there are certainly responses to such a statement, but I'm unsure if they're putting words in his mouth, as it were). Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - ] (]) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Witness intimidation" 😂 so are we now a court of law? His honor, ] is our ]? ] tells us you are an ] that has ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] is not witness intimidation, nor is this a court. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm happy to discuss my background and motivations over email with an admin who has a record of neutrality regarding FTN. - ] (]) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Noted, thanks. - ] (]) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' They have openly stated, as I linked above, their purposes of pushing information that the scientific community is "trying to cover up". Their POV pushing is blatant and reinforced by them being an SPA in this topic area. A topic ban would be a potential stopgap to hopefully have them actually become a proper constructive editor, rather than just outright banning them for their clear ] activities. So, if anything, a topic ban is much more merciful than the alternative. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Silverseren is heavily involved in the underlying dispute. I have never said that there is "information that the scientific community is 'trying to cover up', just that there was never a thorough investigation and the debate is ongoing or inconclusive (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) (https://www.wissenschaftstehtauf.ch/Inside_the_Virus-Hunting_Nonprofit_at_the_Center_of_the_Lab-Leak_Controversy_Vanity_Fair.pdf), that we ought to remove or attribute the sources we use whose authors have a direct relationship with the facility that the theory implicates (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/ "Shi herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest") and that we won't be including in the article any of the less prestigious, primary sources (e.g., https://www.jpands.org/vol29no1/orient.pdf) nor the non-peer reviewed sources (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20230711/116185/HHRG-118-VC00-20230711-SD005.pdf - a U.S. defense laboratory that sequenced the virus and https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=23853f40-72f5-443a-8f87-89af7fce1a92 - a Bayesian analysis) in support of a lab leak scenario. ] (]) 10:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' tban from COVID articles. The editor has ]ed themselves, it seems. SPA consumate. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I '''support''' in the first place a topic ban from Covid-19 broadly construed, but will also support a tban from COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory in case that narrower ban gets more traction here. ] &#124; ] 10:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC).
:@], Misplaced Pages being "]" in this context just means that we use the most prestigious source material available to verify our claims. It doesn't tell us to suppress verifiable information just because it would "challenge the status quo" in society. By the way, I am not saying that my account exists "to challenge the status quo". I'm just correcting what might be a misrepresentation on your part as to what that document prescribes for us. I have always used high-quality sources in any of my edits to the main-space articles and used the talk pages to express my concerns about unverified claims. ] (]) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I fail to see how this addresses Hob Gadling's chronic and intractable behavioral issues. ] (]) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – weak support for TBAN from COVID-19 overall, strong support for COVID-19 Origins, broadly construed (to include Gain of Function research, Fauci, WIV, etc) - This editor has repeatedly cast ASPERSIONS , has stated several times over that they intend to edit in a POV way to 'correct the biases that are in favor of the democratic party' , has shown a very poor understanding of policy (e.g. trying to advocate for a POVFORK , saying a discussion shouldn't be closed because no one could truly understand how complicated it is ) and a poor ability to assess the content of sources where they have a clear bias, repeatedly hitting others over the head with that ''failure to understand'' (e.g. ]/] ). I think they could probably benefit from editing a less contentious area of Misplaced Pages. (and yes I have participated in some of these discussions involving LLW) —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Shibbolethink is heavily involved in the dispute and misinterprets as bludgeoning my consistent opposition to their prolific use of faulty citations. The examples of citations they provided here are a perfect case study in what I had assumed was a good faith misunderstanding but am now convinced must be intentional mis-attribution. None of the links they provided substantiate anything they’re saying. ] (]) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – COVID-19 broadly construed. I originally suggested trouts. But Lardlegwarmer’s responses in this section have convinced me that this user has problems with NPOV, DUE, and RS that continue even on AN/I. Perhaps six months editing elsewhere will be of value. And yes, I have been involved. ] (]) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?] (]) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Says who? Everyone can comment here. ] (]) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) ] ] (]) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the {{tq|underlying dispute}} you have with Hob. The closer can take this all into account. ] (]) 12:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Lardlegwarmers may be right. Palpable's Oppose !vote, in particular, reflects involvement in the Covid lab leak dispute and should be disregarded. ] (]) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The criteria of having simply posted to a COVID article does not serve as a threshold for being in a dispute with lard leg warmers. If a vote is to be disregarded for its caster's fulfillment of being involved in a dispute with lard's POV-pushing, then a talk page discussion, diffs should be linked for certain proof. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Echoing @]'s statement. I understand how it can be seen as problematic (also why I'm not voting), but that's not the standard. Furthermore, if it was, that would equally disqualify @] and @]. (It shouldn't, just to be clear, but just making sure that's documented if we're going down this road.) ] (]) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Covid-19 T-ban. Their behaviour here smacks of "Them vs. everybody". ] (]) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I understand your sentiment, but what am I expected to do when all these editors are directly invoking my name and mischaracterizing my behavior and using sanction-gaming to push me out of a contentious discussion? ] (]) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Surprised the CIVILPOV-pushing edit requests flooding my COVID watchlist this past month didn't result in a tban earlier. ] (]) 03:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Well it would have spoiled all the fun, since a CIVILPOV guy is apparently fair game to use as target practice for ad hominems in the talk page ] (]) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' given the behavior in this area of editing. And before you reply, Lardle, I suggest you read ]. You don't need to comment on every !vote here.
::(To Slrubenstien above) Keep in mind that there are historical concepts of editorship and controversy involved. For example, you now say that "ant-Semitism" has a pejorative meaning, but at the time you rejected the notion altogether - not just that there were no sources. In fact the sources I provided, Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc., were met by you with extremely prejudicial rejection. Hence you've been working with a concept of authorship that defies higher conceptualization, frankly because you think it has no relation to your own. Note for example how you surreptitiously promoted Trinitiarianism as an absolute condition in the Christianity article lede, when in fact there is some variance. I discussed this a bit in my wlog.
:— <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


=== Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility ===
::So, yeah, this has been going on for some time. The important thing though here is for you to build a case, and approach it rationally. This works in any context. For example you and William both above cite a number of diff-links, but you fail to put them into context, and thus fail to make an actual case.
{{atop
| result = There is no consensus for a block or any other sanction at this time. Everyone is reminded that ] is a core policy of Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 18:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


{{userlinks|Hob Gadling}}
::And what is the case you are trying to make here? ''That I be banned? That my arguments, regardless of substance, simply be ignored? That you can continue to simply reject anything I might have to say, even when I do provide sources? (Which I have done on a ''number of occasions''). That you can continue to take my arguments out of context, or otherwise misrepresent them?'' Do explain.


There are concerns about ] regarding this editor's behaviour. Should a ] be in order? A ]? Or an ] when addressing other users? The community will decide.
:: Likewise we will have to deal with some issues that transcend us both, even though Arbcom has some notable impotence in dealing with matters of its own fundamental legislation. One thing that has to go is this notion that RS's dominant modality be a deletionist one. I say so just in case collaboration still has anything to do with this project. Keep in mind that you appear to have no issue of collaborating when it comes to dealing with views which are in agreement with your own conceptualizations. Keep in mind also that because you reject collaboration with those you disagree on the fundamentals, you thus demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what collaboration means, and what it can ultimately do. So I really do want you get your arguments in concise order first, and if that means filing some kind of formal case, I can then refute each.


<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Getting you and Jayjg to do something other than whine about "reliable sources" all day long - particularly when I referred 38 times to just one - would be good for everyone. My sense of things is that if I can't get obstinate persons to deal with just one reliable source, there's no point in me trying to introduce a second. In fact our presence here means to some degree my success in making you deal with just that one source. The rest is just a logical argument that says that ''"car parts" has something to do with "cars" and to a lesser degree "parts."'' Your completely irrelevant counterargument, which says essentially that ''an article like "]" need not at all mention any definition of "cheese"'', is ''interesting''. -] (] | ] | ]) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:<s>'''Support 1 month block''' – Hob needs an ultimatum, and the behaviour, even though they're right much of the time, is unacceptable per ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Your post opens with a typical example of the source of my frustration. '''Nowehere have I said "anti-semitism" has a pejorative meaning''' My position has not changed since 2003: I believe that people can use the term ''incorrectly.'' My analogy would be to call an appale an orange - it is simply incorrect. But the word apple continues to refer to a certain kind of fruit. The term anti-Semite can be incorrectly applied to another person, but it is ''not'' pejorative, it is a term that refers to people who, among other things, say pejorative things. We went over this six years ago. I continue to see you violating NOR, se,dom using sources and when you do, using them inappropriately, often violating SYNTH, or taking them out of context, all in order to develop your own arguments about a topic, which violates NPOV. Do I want you banned? Well, yeah, until you show evidence of being able to work in a collaborative way with people. Ehud is a perfect examplke because so little seems to be at stake. You insisted it came from Yehudi and I insisted you provide reliable sources for that; instead you provided your own personal interpretation of Hebrew grammar. I said you were violating NOR (which you took to be pejorative). Another user provided the correct etymology and a source, and you had the gall to tell me that I should learn a lesson, and provide sources rather than just argue with people! When my "argument" with you was my insistence that ''you'' provide a source! If this is not trolling, what is? ] | ] 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Also, I ''never'' promoted trinitarianism. You are just making stuff up. ] | ] 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC) ::This feels ]. ] (]) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|extended discussion}}
:::Disagreement with processes and policy is fair, but even if you are totally correct in your views of RS, V, etc, article space is not the correct place to implement them as folks just want to edit (and collaborate!) within the existing consensual processes and not entertain these "conceptualizations." You mention how long you've been editing here pretty frequently, so I guess you know better than us newbies how wikiprocesses were formed and what you can do to change them. Propose your changes inside the WP process space - a great place for conceptualizing with folks who focused are on that topic. RS's are required because V / NPOV are required. Deviating from current, consensual policy inside of article space is hugely time consuming and disruptive as evidenced by all of the text here and at ]. Until and unless policy changes, threads that propose material changes to content without reliable sourcing should just be summarily closed until sourcing is provided. Doing this actually supports the process of collaboration as finite resources don't need to be endlessly engaged with discusses content changes that fail (current) policy. cheers, --] | ] 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Sure it would be. As ] once ]: "Consequences." <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::When ] shot ] in '']'', was that punishment? Or was that the ''consequence'' of Bill Skarsgard acting in a contentious manner and engaging in general buffoonery, conducting himself way out of place and S(crew)A(round)+F(ind)O(ut)? You conflate "punishment" with there being consequences for tomfoolery. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::We're discussing this on Misplaced Pages, not John Wick: Chapter 4, so I'm not sure how that has any relevance.<br>Also, that sounds exactly like a punishment to me. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm disappointed you can't understand ]. 😔 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I suppose that, say, per example, a ] who edits their respective topics is "punished" when the consequences (block) start to kick in for their general bothersomeness? Look, we can have a whole schpeel about what the ], or we can subvert expectations and be really straightforward about a subtle subject. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''Oppose block''' I don't think this is a sanctionable level of incivility. I'd be ok with sending them a trout. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose block''' Hob is a long term contributor most often engaged in the thankless task of keeping fringe nuttery from overtaking a range of obscure articles. I don't see a history of problematic incivility that would warrant a block. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support block''' as per BarntToust. Over the years I've seen the editor be rude and borderline bully, if not outright. It doesn't reflect well on Wiki.] (]) 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{anchor|HOB edit restriction}}
* A 1 month block is not likely to change long-term behavior, and would only amount to punishment. That's why we don't do temporary blocks in cases like this. Rather, something is needed that will force Hob to adjust their behavior if they want to continue to edit. An indef block would do it, but seems over the top. One alternative would be an ]. What about:
:{{tqb|Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months on ].}}
:Of course Hob would be free to point out that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is ], or anything else related to the editorial process, but they would be prohibited from commenting on other editors' ''ability'' to come to such conclusions for themselves.
{{collapse top|some of the diffs above to which this would apply|bg=LightGray}}
{{collapse bottom}}
:I think this would solve a lot of the civility problems we see in the diffs. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Should we apply the same strict civility standards to ] (]) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|extended discussion}}
:::]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No. ] (]) 19:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"I am your father." <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::General complaints with the direction of the project and bemoaning that we ain't a ] don't exactly scream "ur contribs and opinions are BS" like they do w/ Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I just think it's a little rich for someone whose semi-retirement comment bemoans "incompetent editors" at some length to be the person to propose a specific instruction that another editor be {{tq|prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities}}. Glass houses, stones, all that. ] (]) 19:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah. I'm glad they didn't direct this at anyone specific, though. I've seen people complain that the ] is misappropriating funds to be a charity instead of a web hosting organisation, but long my five years of editing here have been since I've seen anyone with the audacity to take it directly to ] or the accounts of the ]. (I mean, for the most of the years as an IP it's been semi-protected but hey ain't seen anything about it in the Signpost). <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I mean, as long as nobody is being directly addressed in ''any'' scenario of any complaint, whether its Foundation business or Meritocracy grievances or words about the intellectual capacities of editors with opposing viewpoints, and its kept broad and generalised about the ''overall'' direction of the project, it's like trying to hold recourse against an editor for having a "I think Democrats are slandering ] on Misplaced Pages" userbox vs. the editor actually going out in the wild to ] a Democrat over their position in a discussion on ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Unfortunately for this case, there's diffs galore of Hob going out of their way to call others' opinions and mental capacities bullshit and dull, and thus we are here. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:::Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. ] is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And those words, editors, are the summary of the conclusion drawn at the above "extended discussion" CT. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose block''' Obviously punitive. We don't do that. ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*Strongly '''oppose block''' per my ]. ] &#124; ] 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC).
*<s>'''Support editing restriction''' ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as I've seen worse stuff going on than "{{tq|bullshit}}". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' any sanctions on Hob Gadling - I'm not seeing any clear sanctionable misbehavior here. ] ] 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Punitive. ] (]) 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Just not seeing it as sanctionable. As an aside, the four (count them four) collapses in this filing are an example of why I prefer AE. ] (]) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per Pppery, O3000 etc. Tired of efforts to sanction good editors based on concepts of civility which are overly formalistic and don't duly assign weight to context (in my opinion, of course). ---] ] 23:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''- I also see no obvious justification for a block. ] ] 10:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' formal warning or 1 week block as per discussion above. It now also looks that there has been some 'coordinated editing', with all editors aligned to one POV on Covid lab leak page coming out to place ban on OP for reporting this uncivil behaviour. This was bad ban by {{ping|The Bushranger}} who failed to recognise malign influence of small but well coordinated group of POV editors, who damage the project. ] (]) 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Or, "unconfirmed conspiracies are ] and there's nothing more to it than that", y'know. Have you even read the screed Lard leg warmers added to their page? I mean, seriously? ] says that this is ], but, y'know, fringe is fringe, and if being a "small but well coordinated group of POV editors" is what you get for adhering to veracity, then Lord help us. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|malign influence of small but well coordinated group of POV editors}} And you're complaining about another editor's uncivil behavior? Okay... ] (]) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yes, I am referring to them as group, and I am claiming here, on administrator talk page, '''which is for these complaints''', that they are coordinated, most likely '''off-wik'''i. The vote to ban is not truly representative of community. ] (]) 07:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Block''' - send trouts instead. sometimes getting exasperated in a project is different than actual bad-faith edits. if a long-term pattern of incivility, more punitive measure coudl be warranted. diffs brought up don't seem that bad, though they could have been more civil. ] (]) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*could '''support apaugasma's suggestion'''. seems useful. ] (]) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*: {{tq|"Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense"}} is far too vague for an editing restriction. The problem is "including but not limited to"; if the restriction ended after the word "capabilities" you might have something you could work with (though I would still oppose it). ] 22:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Isn't everyone prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::: Not necessarily. If I am editing, say, a scientific article, and am forever having to revert an editor who is making errors because they don't understand the subject, it is not a violation of civility to point out that they need to go away and learn about it ''before'' trying to edit again. The rather woolly restriction above would stop someone from doing even that. ] 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Black Kite is right on point. Problem is Hob can't do that without highly personal comments of people not being , lacking , being prone to believe in views and , etc. Also, I'm fairly confident that if Hob were restricted from pointing out incompetence, someone else would do so in a civil way. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::This is why the editing restriction is appealable, this editing restriction is not necessary on regular editors, but appears necessary for them. ] (]) 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Clearly not sanctionable, and hardly even uncivil, especially when viewed in the context of the discussions. At most maybe awarding a barn-trout (is there such a thing?) that celebrates that he didn't actually loose his cool and become uncivil, while at the same time, being rather offputting and feeding the POV-troll. ]&thinsp;] 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per Bish. The day we start punishing good contributors for not having a constantly saintly response to awful ] POV-pushers is the day this project goes to hell. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 12:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We do all the time, our civility policies do not care if you are right in a discussion or good contributors. You are way off the mark in your general assessment. ] (]) 14:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Indeed, it's even ''part of the civility policy'' (]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm well familiar with civility guidelines and that being right doesn't exclude you from them. The point is that we should not mete out sanctions, let alone a ''month block'' in situations where there is an occasional display of imperfection when responding to POV pushing - especially considering per the comment above what is being replied to. If this was a genuine ] breach I'd support sanctions but I have not seen anything from Hob above that meets that. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Again you seem to be factoring in them being right with your justification because it was responding to POV pushing. Also no one expects perfection, just to do better. The bar is already so low, lets not encourage limbo. ] (]) 01:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''By all means ]'''. We should all strive to be nicer and not personalize. Believe me, I understand that it is hard in these contexts. ] (]) 13:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose block''': I loathe incivility from “]” contributors being excused because the person on the receiving end “]” and/or they’re “]” to risk losing. But a block for getting curt with someone pushing fringe nonsense seems extraordinarily petty. This is '''''not''''' an endorsement of Hob Gadling‘s behavior, but I cannot imagine why anyone would find these remarks sanctionable. ] (]) 06:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose any sanction''', I've probably used bullshit myself on a number of occasions and probably worse. I'm not seeing anything in the diffs that rises to the level of requiring sanctions. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


=== Proposed Hob Gadling Editing Restriction by Apaugasma ===
:::: I don't have to go very far in terms of the policy route than to cite ]/]. The fact that much of the substance in that policy's own lede comes from my own conceptualizations about what an article lede needs to do, should not be an obstacle to your continued faith. In short, the substance behind WP:LEDE ''is'' higher, relevant conceptualization.
{{atop
| result = There is no consensus to impose an editing restriction. ] (]/]) 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


{{userlinks|Hob Gadling}}
:::: Keep in mind, I did provide sources. They simply rejected their relevance. So the extrapolated principle in this case is simple: ''If a topic is a specialized one, we need to explain why it is so.'' Also, ''if the topic likewise uses more general terminology, in some specialized way, then we need to explain why.'' There is some historiology for the relevant terms, which is not too controversial. However if even simple, concise, and relevant explanations of these specialized ("denial") and subjective ("motive, scale, intent") historiologies are rejected without substantive argument, then this rejection is easily understood to be based not in policy or a reliable interpretation thereof.


{{tqb|Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months at ].}}
:::: The common-sense explanation for this type of rejectionism is simply that these explanations give some sense that the specialized terminology is actually a specialized one. And thus they are not rejected because they do not fit policy, but because such explanations defy certain ethnic conceptualizations. This is basically what Slrubenstein was referring to when he said above that 'conceptualization destroys meaning' (paraphrasing). My translation-reparsing of this is something like'' 'such conceptual explanations can only contradict the ones written down in scrolls.' ''Now granted, these are "reliable scrolls" to be certain. Most of them anyway. But these have no meaning at all here if no efforts are made to ''unroll them,'' ''read them to people,'' and ''gain new understanding from their unconstrained resonance.''
Hob Gadling is permitted to comment that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is ], or anything else related to the editorial process, but prohibited from commenting on other editors' ''ability'' to come to such conclusions for themselves, enforceable with blocks. ] (]) 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Support''' Great contribution is not a get-out-of-jail free card from ] & ], complying with this editing restriction should not be difficult. ] (]) 09:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I have always known how to express myself with "sensitiv," as Slrubenstein calls it. That I often do not is simply a ''requirement of the age, an instrument of the times, a necessity of the context,'' and due in no small measure ''to the lack of good faith that I have grown accustomed to dealing with''. I am always pleased, however, to find I am not right in this regard. Regards, -] (] | ] | ]) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:this is already being debated above. thought we generally shouldnt make multiple RFCs in a single section like this anyways? ] (]) 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't see where you really responded to anything guyzero said, nor have you given a reason why we should be doing anything other than what he's suggested. <font color="green">]</font>] 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' because this is inane, petty, bordering on ]-esque. You can’t log an editing restriction that amounts to “Don’t be uncivil” because that should be the default. ] (]) 06:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


===Suspected off-wiki coordination in COVID-19 lab leak topic===
:::"''deal with William''". Oh dear, Steve, there's this thing called ], which I, judging by your elaborate responses, have to be a part of more frequently than you. I do not have the time or interest to appease your wikilawyering. Incidentally, I have abolutely no qualms about the thread title being changed, and even offer an apology for the impression it falsely/inadvertently suggested.
{{atop|status=]|1=IntrepidContributor was warned to strike their accusation and take any evidence of ] to ArbCom. They have not done the former, and by all accounts (see HJMitchell's comment below) has not done the latter either. Instead, they appear to have ], followed up with another handful, and then come down with ] when called to ]. There's ''very'' strong consensus below for a ], and the consensus appears to be a ] from COVID-19, broadly construed, and a ] until they agree to retract their accusations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
It appears there is off-wiki coordination between POV editors going back many years in this topic. It is easy to spot this because complaints of non-neutral wording and unbalanced sourcing are frequent over years and from varied editors, while responses always the same and from same group of editors, often ending up in administrator talk boards like this resulting in quick ban by passing admin unaware of this dynamic. Calls for neutrality rarely ask for more than slightly more neutral wording (like not using wikivoice to describe "misplaced suspicion" in lab leak theory due to outbreak's proximity to lab ), and responses always cursory and blunted, and often even uncivil, which is why OP started this discussion. It common for these editors to immediately start threatening sanctions as soon someone comes near topic asking for more neutral coverage, making it impossible for progress without RFC on every tiny point. It is required for administrators to review coordinated editing in this topic. ] (]) 07:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:Let be caution you to not draw undue attention to yourself in these discussions, not because there is some grand conspiracy, coordination or cabal at work. Rather because it will cause people to being to look into some of your questionable editing behaviors. This is especially true as it seems like you're doubling-down on your position shared with a now TBAN'ed user, while casting grand aspirations of off-wiki coordination. However, if you have an actual accusation to present formally, please start a new section and be prepared to ''provide evidence'' (especially in the form of diffs) and not simply broad claims. Without such, there is no more a claim you might have to editors coordinating to work against your position, than might be said of editors who you align with that have been blocked or banned from FT topics. Please take a moment and look over ] and let me again caution you against boomerang, which LW learned the hard way. And lets you be tempted like Palpable above, this is not a threat, but please take it as intended, which is a friendly, AGF, suggestion to consider how you proceed from here, as your self-perspective of the situation does not reflect the actual reality of the situation. ]&thinsp;] 08:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Consequently, this is the first time I've checked this thread since my comment 2 days ago. I'd just like comment on one thing: on Misplaced Pages, it's always been my intention to keep controversial articles, such as ], as they should be, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. Indeed, I was selected - and supported unanimously - to be an administrator largely on that basis. The fact that all hell breaks loose when someone leaves a few daft opposes on requests for adminship, yet the general response to someone who - on top of all the disruptive editing - systematically rejects core policies such as ] and ] and () cherry-picks material to push his agenda on an encyclopedia page viewed thousands of times a month is largely "uh, nothing to see here, move on", in my opinion, encompasses everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages if this individual is not sanctioned in some manner. ] (]) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


:It might actually be {{tqq|easy to spot this}} because we're all so very, very used to the same old song and dance from POV-pushers by this point, can spot them coming from a mile away, and know that "neutrality" is the last thing they actually want. ] explains this very well - as does ]: {{tqq|There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it}}. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You could have picked a far better example, Steve. ] has absolutely nothing to do with ], unless one has a very strange definition of cheese. <font color="green">]</font>] 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::It would be easy to spot if you read dispute where there is actual RfC where consensus (so far) clearly leans in the way of the editor you call POV pusher. Perhaps it was too much for me to ask that you read the diffs properly instead of taking the complaint on face value, but I expect more of you as an admin. ] (]) 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If you could provide diffs or links for your claim of off-wiki collusion that would help. Circumstantial evidence and asking editors to read between the lines isn't very useful. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Are you being facetious? Off-wiki coordination is by definition, off-wiki, and diffs are not possible. This is an administrator noticeboard diffs are not the only admissible form of evidence. ] (]) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|This is an administrator noticeboard}}, clearly, yes it is, that and that only. The evidence required to prove off-wiki collusion should be sent to ], because off-wiki business can't be brought here because, many reasons, though to start, posting reddit links and discord convos usually constitutes a vio of ]. So get off of this noticeboard with problems it is unable to address, and see ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Also, should such evidence exists, don't just open an AE case (again, ]) but rather contact the arbitration committee privately. ] (]) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Coming to ANI about off-wiki collusion compares to a person calling a ] when their plumbing is clogged. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{small|]. ]] 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::::Aha. I refer to calling a welder when plumbing is ''clogged'', not really installed or replaced. Usually when I call the local plumber to unclog my master bathroom toilet, a minimal amount of sparks are produced during their work. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination this should be sent privately to the arbitration committee. If you don't have evidence you never should have opened this thread anyway. Either way the right thing to do is to withdraw this accusation from this venue. ] (]) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You apparently only read "diffs" and not "or links". Unsubstantiated ] shouldn't be anywhere, let alone ANI. If you have any proof take it to ARBCOM per Simonm223. If you don't have ''actual'' proof then you should retract your claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::So... are ya gonna cast ASPERSIONS or are you gonna send Arbitrarion some links to, idk, discord servers, IRC rooms, anything? Bans—they're what happens when an editor has, nearly a fetish, for trying to include information—at every possible turn—that goes against medical professionals' standpoints. Consensus in the scientific community establishes an idea and discounts another, Misplaced Pages covers the major, non-fringe outlooks on subjects. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


* Don't play devil's advocate for POV-pushers. You get nowhere with it. Unless you have '''damning''' proof that editors are banding together behind-the-curtains in illicit fashion, I encourage you to strike some text using <nowiki><s></nowiki> {{!tq|your unwarranted remarks here}} <nowiki></s></nowiki> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I think.. anyone reading this no doubt thinks we are all talking past each other. (Note, I wanted to keep this extremely short, but I failed in that regard): WilliamH above, just to take one example of this 'talking past each other,' references my example of an argument, but he misses the point behind it entirely that it represented Slrubenstein's actual argument, simply putting into a rather absurd reformulation. Slrubenstein's argument is certainly valid in cases like the example I used ("cheesing") which are entirely idiomatic and unrelated to their apparent core terminology. In cases like this one (Holocaust and Holocaust denial) where the terms are ''entirely'' related, his argument is so utterly irrelevant that it constitutes a demonstration of a deeper capacity on his part for fallacious argumentation.
* I suggest that {{noping|IntrepidContributor}} should either provide evidence to Arbcom or immediately withdraw this accusation. Either way this topic of discussion should be closed as inappropriate to AN/I. ] (]) 13:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Boomerang'''. ] has repeatedly made aspersions and assumptions of bad faith against many editors, both here and in the , none of which are supported by ''any'' evidence whatsoever. Making such baseless accusations the focus of an ANI subsection is a waste of editors' time, and when combined with their disruptive actions elsewhere (''e.g''., ) it indicates that a time-out is required. ] (]) 15:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I want to give them the chance to withdraw their accusation before calling for a boomerang. But if they refuse to do so or just disappear from the thread with the comments out there then, yeah, it's probably that time. ] (]) 15:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::We now have , which demonstrates that ] has chosen to triple- (quadruple?) down on their evidence-free aspersions against multiple editors. ] (]) 15:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::OK that was doubling down after they got clear instructions about how to handle it from more than one editor here. ] (]) 15:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Instructions? What are you? ] (]) 18:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Sorry for not being clear. By "time-out" I mean a '''topic ban''' from COVID-19, broadly construed. I can understand why the repeated, evidence-free aspersions and assumptions of bad faith, which have yet to be withdrawn, justify an indef. I just don't see how this approach is a benefit to the project. ] (]) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Boomerang'''. If it was just this out-of-pocket subsection, I would agree with {{noping|Simonm223}} on giving some time of day, but since Intrepid's ] have been pervasive throughout this report according to {{noping|JoJo Anthrax}}'s motion, and also considering that they ], a boomerang needs to happen so this improper conduct can be addressed. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*There was ] three years ago. If IntrepidContributor has any evidence they should go to Arbcom for ]. Otherwise, they should retract and ] their aspersions here ASAP. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Boomerang''' After being advised that they should privately contact the arbitration committee this editor instead just spammed the accusation into the comments of an AE filing about someone who shares their POV. This is inappropriate and disruptive. ] (]) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Boomerang''' IntrepidContributor was pointed to ] eleven days ago in this filing and knows what it means. This is yet more worthy of a BOOM than the OP. ] (]) 15:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:I'd like to give IntrepidContributor one last chance to strike their comment, otherwise I don't see how this can end anyway but badly for them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Slrubenstein and Jayjg have echoed this same argument several times, stating essentially that "Holocaust denial" is ''so far removed from'' the term "The Holocaust" that <u>no mention of the latter</u> is required in the former. The underlined portion is oversimplified, but these are the essentials of his argument. The underlined portion can be augmented with something like ''matters of subjectivity in its definition''.
::Following warnings and warnings about not casting aspersions and making baseless claims of collusion, IntrepidContributor ignored them and to ] anyways. Their chances have run out. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. ] (]) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Based on this answer, yeah, I think the best course of action is to encourage IC to look for other parts of the encyclopedia where they can work collaboratively and to be firmly invited to cease editing anything related to COVID-19. ] (]) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This comment, {{tq|I '''would''' be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, '''but I think they know already''', as do you}}, makes it sound like you are either bullshitting everyone about having evidence, or you are more worried about running everyone around the corner like dogs at a fire hydrant rather than actually helping out and exposing some serious fuckery that's going on in the topic. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 18:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] As an uninvolved admin looking over this, I suggest that you either confirm your submission of evidence to ARBCOM or cease your allegations of off-wiki collusion. You've not provided any evidence/diffs for on-wiki collusion and have repeatedly made accusations. This is unacceptable. ] ] ] 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::How are my supposed to confirm submission of evidence and to who? ] (]) 18:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Damn it, dude, you ARE running us around the bend like dogs at a fire hydrant! As has been instructed for you to do '''numerous times''': Go to the page --> ] <-- and look for the instructions to submit reports, and put your "evidence" there. Confirm that you did so here, <s>and we will ]: whether or not you actually did matters to nobody, because the only thing that will matter is that</s> {{!tq|and}} ''if you did'', a case that is '''none of our concern''' will open, and then if that case finds your "evidence" true, then those of us involved in the conspiracy will be put to arbitration either behind the scenes or at ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Or as the uninvolved Admin notes, an arb will confirm that they have received ''something'' from you, thus this tangent will close. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 18:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Say you've emailed them and I'm sure {{U|ScottishFinnishRadish}} or {{U|HJ Mitchell}} or another arb would be able to confirm receipt of a substantive and meaningful email containing your evidence. If they can confirm it, I would close this discussion. If not, I would look at ] ] ] 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sure, I will email them in the morning (EET). I didn't plan on this extra work load today. But I have enough diffs to make the report by then. ] (]) 18:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You are putting this off as if you have nothing to report. First IntrepidContributor says "I have diffs", then '''present them'''. No, it's "I have off-wiki collusion", then '''go to ARBCOM'''. Cycling back-and-fuckin'-forth between this dog-fire hydrant nonsense, and ''finally'', now we're back at "{{tq|I have enough diffs}}". And you ask, "{{tq|to who}} ?", and after reiterating everything we have said numerously through this thread, you say {{tq|I will email them in the morning}}. You had enough time today to open this thread, then throw a ] of accusations everywhere, and you had enough time to . Yet, you don't have enough time to list diffs and give explanations to the arb committee? I smell a load of horse shit.
:::::::<br>
:::::::'''I invite the next uninvolved admin to''' {{!tq|issue a block}} '''to {{noping|IntrepidContributor}} for general ]'''.
:::::::<br>
:::::::Yours in ], ], and ], <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 19:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@] - by my watch it is now in the afternoon EET (17:55), can you confirm here if you have actually submitted the email earlier today as promised here? ]&thinsp;] 15:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@] @] -- any chance you can confirm if @] has contacted ARBCOM in the last 24 hours? ]&thinsp;] 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Nothing in my inbox. ] &#124; ] 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I think at this point IC has failed to make good on their "I'll do it in the morning" commitment. And they still decline to withdraw their personal attacks and baseless accusations. ] (]) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq| I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you.}} This is a direct accusation against an editor here and a nonsensical statement about the arbs. ] (]) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|as do you}} No I <s>struck</s> don't and I've had enough of being tarred with baseless <s>struck</s>. Whether that's here or at lableak talk page, somewhere I rarely comment on a topic I rarely edit. You appear to only be able to see editors you disagree with through a battleground mentality, and as part of some conspiratorial cabal.
:::Unless an Arb can confirm that evidence has been provided, and shows something I've obviously missed, I propose IntrepidContributor be '''blocked''' for ] behaviour. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, they said they think the arbs already know. So I guess they're in on the conspiracy. ] (]) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@], please Read that again in '''''full''''' context. {{tq|What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you.}} This was only a smartass, tongue-in-cheek remark about how "everybody here knows about fight club, but doesn't talk about it". Like, a smartass remark that "POV-pushing and cabals are an open secret knownst to the ]" or something. No arb has been notified, the editor is being a smartass. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 20:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Oh, I read this two ways, I thought you misread their text 😅 you're probably just being funny. lol sorry. The editor still needs a block tho. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes. But at this point, not sure I can tell when they are being serious or trolling. ] (]) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@], @] - I would hope the next uninvolved admin would see that I gave conditions for IntrepidContributor. If those are not met, they will be blocked. There's no rush here and carrying on this discussion calling for blood isn't exactly productive.
:::::::If another admin find clear and convincing evidence warranting a block of Intrepid Contributor, then they should block them. Otherwise, I'd ask that the "offer" remain. ] ] 20:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I would block them now, @], and I would wait until a member of ARBCOM confirms—not ''what'' IntrepidContributor submitted—but that what they've submitted is '''legitimate evidence of what they claim is happening'''. At that confirmation, and with the ARBCOM member's blessing to the blocking admin, then the editor would be unblocked. The editor is fucking with us even as we outline the processes to make ARBCOM reports, and their other contributions listed in this report such as improper, half-assed deletions they won't bother to complete properly are screaming NOTHERE. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with BT... <small>''(except the potentially uncivil, but probably warranted uncivil language)...''</small> Beyond this discussion, IC is otherwise being disruptive to the project including blanking pages with a lousy excuse.. Since they had the time to start this discussion that was apparently so urgent and a big deal, yet not the time to complete the necessary paperwork, coupled with all of the other factors, it seems like blocking to prevent further disruption is prudent. ]&thinsp;] 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::thanks for concurring. As the community has above developed a consensus that an editor using profanity to describe actions and behavior is not prohibited, I'm completely safe in calling IC's behavior shitty (]), so long as I make no direct remarks about IC ''personally''. I don't believe I've done that. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::As Jay said, besides the report, they have been being disruptive in other parts on Misplaced Pages, and considering the fact that they have been disruptive during the very processes of ANI itself, besides the unfounded claims of cabals they spew, there has been enough bullshit going on for a NOTHERE block. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Evergreen, forgive us our impatience. Some of us spend all too much time in CTOPs. It's wearing. ] (]) 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::If they show arbs proof of their accusations then fine, otherwise the they need to stop. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::My suspicion is that what IC actually has is like 2 diffs of some veteran editor saying to some other veteran editor "hey you should email me!" or something similar. Which is entirely normal, part of the way wikipedia works, and not "off-wiki coordination". Or some similar conspiratorial nonsense. {{pb}}When you're a '''hammer''' (''conspiracy-believing POV-pusher'') everything looks like a '''nail''' (''proof that all the mean people who disagree with you are actually part of a secret government agency that's coordinating against you and laughing about you behind your back''). {{pb}}Nothing that happens on the lab leak page requires or even ''suggests'' there is off-wiki coordination. Where contentious articles exist on wiki, there is almost always a small group of veteran editors who tangentially edit around that topic and watch their watchlists like hawks to make sure POV CPUSHing SPAs don't ruin the beauty that is a truly NPOV contentious article. They don't need to coordinate, because they generally share in common ''a belief in the five pillars'' and edit accordingly.{{pb}}I am really ''very'' excited to see what IC comes up with. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I honestly think what it comes down to is selection bias. The sorts of people who frequent the Fringe Theory noticeboard and who don't get mad and leave quickly tend to be skeptical, critical and materialist. And critical materialist skeptics tend to look negatively on conspiracy theories, pseudo science and quackery. For a conspiracy minded person there's all these like-minded nay-sayers saying variations of "that's a conspiracy theory" and so they... do what conspiracy minded people do and assume it's a conspiracy. Really it's just a messageboard whose topic filters for a certain subjectivity. ] (]) 01:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Boomerang''' I only speak for the quad-corner-tri-city and metro areas cabal, not the greater WP:MEDRS cabal, but I agree a boomerang is in order. ] (]) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Boomerang means topic ban''', I presume. But y'all would be better served to make this kind of thing clear in your arguments. My worry when it comes to this matter is primarily with IntrepidContributor's claim of ] functioning rather as something like ] (and apologies for the possible Godwin's Law implications). In any case, and even if that's not what's going on, I have a hard time seeing the net positive in this topic coming from {{userlinks|IntrepidContributor}} and generally think the problems on this topic stem from a lack of strong ] enforcement which hopefully we are now coming to terms with. ] (]) 13:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:That would be my interpretation. A topic ban is definitely in order. Maybe for all conspiracy theories as well as anything COVID related. ] (]) 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::TBan would be appropriate no matter what. But IMO these ongoing accusations should result in an '''indef block''' for NOTHERE. ] (]) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Boomerang''' since they clearly did not heed advice to drop the stick and want to persist in their claims, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues. It has now been 20 hours since they posted so far, and I would be very curious to know if they actually did submit the email evidence that they claimed they would {{tq| email them in the morning (EET).}} - It is now 5:54pm (1754) in EET, so if they haven't yet, then it should result in '''indef block for legal threats''' and excessive disruption. If they did fulfill their promise, then a TBAN is still most certainly in order. ]&thinsp;] 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Did I miss something, what legal threats? ] (]) 13:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::For as much as this goofy goober IC ticks me off, I will give them one, '''one''' note: threatening to send people to the arbcom is not a legal threat. It's a Misplaced Pages "court", not an IRL court. ] doesn't apply here, but a whole heck of a lot of else does. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Ah okay thanks! ] (]) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Uh, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee is not a court of law? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Block and TBAN already''', this is beyond ] at this point, so have no idea why people are !voting that the editor shouldn't be immune from scrutiny; based on BOOMERANG they never were in the first place, and this discussion went full circle boomerang instantly. Anyway, this has ] reading this section, I can only assume the other sections also wasted a lot of time. The editor is clearly being disruptive, casting aspersions, and is wasting everyone's time. Please don't allow this editor to drag this on any further than it already has been dragged out, such as requesting delays from ARBCOM to provide evidence or otherwise. ] (]) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*<Final Jeopardy music plays> I can't help but notice that IntrepidContributor has gone quiet since promising to expose the cabal to Arbcom... - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You too, huh? Shall we ping someone uninvolved for a block due to legal threats and general disruption, or are you ready to do the deed? ]&thinsp;] 23:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], I endorse you making the block on IntrepidContributor for NOTHERE and DISRUPTIVE. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 23:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:See ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


===Dinglelingy===
:::: The background is straightforward: term "The Holocaust" first split off from its apparent original definition of "all Nazi murders," and became used to refer exclusively to the mass-murder of Jews alone sometime during the 1960s. That's according to the Columbia Guide. Naturally, there has been a concerted effort to promote an entirely Jewish definition of "The Holocaust," to the rejection of several million other victims. There are of course explanations for this selectivity, and these invariably employ concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (Columbia Guide). The issue then is an editorial one which can be broken down into two basic counterarguments of somewhat differing validity. We've seen examples of each. -] (] | ] | ]) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=No edits to mainspace since 2016. Blocked as ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
(Should we continue to keep all similar issues documented in the same monster section?)


{{userlinks|Dinglelingy}}
:::::*sigh* this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Now I have to go and explain that I never suggested that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Nor have I ever suggested that the Holocaust refers only to the genocide of Jews. In fact, far from it. But by misrepresenting me and the argument, I have no choice but either to disengage (and people will have an unfair representation of me) or repeat what I have said many times ... thus ... further ... delaying ... any ... improvement ... on ... the ... article ... We can go back and forth cand back and forth and back and forth and just let SV continue to use Misplaced Pages like his own little ball of yarn. I'd rather we didn't. ] | ] 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


This ] seems to dip in and out of this controversy whenever things get "interesting", and here comes now again dipping in with some fairly spicy arguments on the Lab Leak theory talkpage: ,
:::::: Hey, well at least you're not mad. (Or else not showing any outward signs thereof). Nice talking with you. -] (] | ] | ]) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: PS (Slrubenstein): BTW, ] needs reworking to get it somewhere back to neutrality. Its upfront usage of "..from eternal damnation" is just the start of it. Please have a look, if you're not busy. -] (] | ] | ]) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


None of this user's contributions in this area are net positives for Misplaced Pages, and I submit that it would have been better had the proposed ] block been enacted when first proposed: . I guess a topic ban from COVID-19 could work too?
:::::::I don't think either one of you are understanding each other. At all. I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, ''simple'' sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations. I think if people can know for sure what the other side wants, and not respond to what they assume the other side is saying, this issue can be resolved a lot easier. ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding our understanding, to a certain extent. Keep in mind we have been crossing paths for seven years. In any case It's not really about what I want to do, or what Slrubenstein wants me not to do, but how you and others can help us by sorting out the arguments and giving us your input. So I appreciate the questions.


* 115 edits ever, and only 4 minor ones to article space. Last seen arguing on the talkpages of COVID conspiracy articles in 2021 for which they were warned multiple times, and back after four years doing the same thing ? That's the definition of ]. Indeffed. ] 08:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as the article issues go, my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism, and necessary to move forward in the direction of dealing objectively with issues of terminology and etymology, as well as ''comprehension,'' which I feel is an essential dimension within the whole sad topic. As I understand them, Slrubenstein presents two main arguments for dis-inclusion: The first one (m1) is valid only in unrelated contexts wherein a pair of terms might only have a superficial relation, and the second (m2) is implied based on his various expressed concerns for how his own subjective ethnic lens relates to the article/concept. His arguments related to sources are likewise twofold: The first (s1) that I have not provided any sources ''at all'' is nullified by my presentation of a very ample and relevant one (Columbia Guide). His second argument (s1) alleges the irrelevance of the above source in the current context - an argument that itself rests circularly on one of his main arguments (m1).
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] ==
With regard to what do I want in general (which is the other way I interpreted your questions), it's about how to formalize and broaden what I do, which is to turn an articulate wreck into a clear, concise, and conceptual statement of the subject. With regard to Slrubenstein (since we are talking about what the other is supposed to be doing), I'd like to see him transform his acuity for detail from its current expression as a modality of exclusive expertise, into a helpful and outgoing movement based on the assisted procurement of citations and the qualitative adjudication of sources. Regards, -] (] | ] | ]) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Bgsu98}}


Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br />
:Ah, Steve, if I had embraced the part of anthropology that had embraced postModernism, I'm sure that I would understand what you had just written. But, unfortunately, I embraced something much more wholesome. I like ]'s suggestion: "''I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, ''simple'' sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations.''" Not much fun, maybe, but helpful... --] (]) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed an editor named {{u|Bgsu98}} who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by ] before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)<br />I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at ]. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.


I should note that {{u|Bgsu98}} doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated ] (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (]). One can really wonder why he does this.
::Thanks, Anthon. And Steve, if I'm getting this right, all you want to do is... include a mention that the term "Anti-semitism" can mean different things? ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::actually, i think it's the different meanings of the "holocaust" that steve wants to note. ](]) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came.
Reply to ]: I would like Stevertigo to stop filling up talk pages with obtuse wordy rambles that express his own views, but no research. ] | ] 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
== Topic Ban of User:DHawker ==


P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while {{u|Bgsu98}} has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (). --] (]) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I have posted this at the admins talk page. My first post was missed (I AGF), and the admin hasn't been on since the second message was posted (14th of September).


:as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @] or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @] who is nominating based on community consensus. ] ] 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
] was placed up for discussion for block evasion . He was subsequently given an extended block by User:Golbez for evasion of his previous block..
::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


::"''However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules.''"<br />— They don't meet ], but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet ]. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require ], so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.<br />(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --] (]) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Three days later, User:Matthewedwards came in and applied a further, but unwarranted block that was not agreed upon by two of the four parties in the discussion. This block was against consensus, and even against the requests of the user requesting intervention (User:MastCell), who wanted User:DHawker blocked from the article itself for edit warring.
:::Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, ] has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like ] without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Star Mississippi|Liz}} A ], a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "]" (])? Cause I was searching for sources for ] and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.<br />Here: .<br />And again, it was {{u|Bgsu98}} who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting ]: "''There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale''." --] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::After looking at ], I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I have also found an interview with ]: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates ], otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no ] research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".<br />Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping {{u|BeanieFan11}} and {{u|Doczilla}}. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
:He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"''
:I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*::Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while {{u|Bgsu98}} directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)<br />Also, a note to admins: Can it be that {{u|Bgsu98}} finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".<br />And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --] (]) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::@] I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @] pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @], making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @]'s comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. ] (]) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::: I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::: Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::: According to , "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::::@]
:::*:::::Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
:::*:::::No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
:::*:::::If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
:::*:::::I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
:::*:::::All the best to everyone involved. ] (]) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::] wrote the following in his original complaint: ''”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.”'' I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met ], the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. ] ] 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*::::OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...<p>(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.</p><p>(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's ''exactly'' the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.</p><p>(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. ] 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
::He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::“Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. ] ] 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Let me help you out here, Ravenswing. I suspect he's saying it's "very unfair" because it seems to him like it's not fair! <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria ({{tq|What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.}}), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. —
:] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The punishment does not fit the crime (Nothing has happened on the talk page warranting a topic ban), was not per consensus, and was applied several days after the incident was closed and done with. Please remove the topic ban by Matthewedwards so that the user only has the punishment with consensus applied. Thank you. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often ''really'' poor; many are simply {{tq|Non-notable figure skater}}, which doesn't say much of anything. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. ] ] 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::And @], you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at ]. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --] (]) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide ] for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created '''seventeen years ago''' -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. ] 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::: The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – ''and'' many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While ''you'' may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("]" and "]".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.<br />But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.<br />Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)<br />By the way, I have tried searching on what was once ], but the news search doesn't work anymore. (.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. ] (]) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===Arbitrary break===
{{Od}} ...{{Tpq|editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes}}. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years.]/]/] (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)
:RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Liz}} The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".<br />A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".<br />Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per ]", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the ] revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::], I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. ] (]) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::]. Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --] (]) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:(nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) ] 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{re|Ravenswing}}, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.<br />And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.<br />I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Please be careful with the ], Moscow Connection. --] 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. ] 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
:::::::Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: {{tq|Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.}} ] (]) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::And ] is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines ''after'' SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. ] (]) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::] example of ignoring SIGCOV ''already present'' in the article. ] (]) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{Ping|GiantSnowman}} {{Ping|Black Kite}} ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. ] (]) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::] is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. ] (]) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. ]] 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::] and ] is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised ] and , although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message {{tq|Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.}} ] (]) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And here are ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes ], close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? ]] 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Going through their contributions, I see about a week ago there was a period of 30 minutes where they did seven AfDs -- not what I would call a paragon of thoroughness. But fifty in a half-hour is absolutely absurd regardless of when it happened -- I take more time than that to line up a shot when I throw a tissue into the trash can at the other end of the room. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. ]] 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: If you go to 10 May 2024 , you get exactly '''50''' nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per . ] (]) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. ]] 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that ] provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?<p>So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. ] 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
*I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, ''especially'' these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. ''However'', I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like ], tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. ] </span>]] 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @] and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @] without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @] basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @]. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @] probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @] is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @] we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @] ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking {{u|Star Mississippi}} to undelete the "]" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at ]. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of {{u|Kvng}}, noticed: {{tq|No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG}}, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.<br />You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*I've decided to save "]" (]) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:*"{{tq|You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what}}"<br />— What I do is called ]. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.<br />I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at ] and that scared me a lot. --] (]) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:*:It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. ] (]) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**I appreciate your input and insight. As I told ] earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.<br>I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! ] ] 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
**:Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. ] </span>]] 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --] (]) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**::Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. ]] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:While I do not know whether @] should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with {{tq|I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.}} @]. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. ] ] 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating ''far'' fewer articles with {{tq|Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}} I suppose the whole discussion is moot. ] </span>]] 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)<br />As I have commented below, when problems were found with {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}'s articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --] (]) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if ] can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. ] ] 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, and . ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. ] (]) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::"As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that ] is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) ] ] 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --] (]) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* As a fellow ] participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that {{ping|Bgsu98}} convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion ''is'' warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--] ] 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. ] 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. ] ] 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I agree with you, but in recent years, a significant number of editors haven't: sufficient to sabotage most attempts to do so. ] 13:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend ''everyone'' take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, ] states the following: {{tq|Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.}} So, I'd ask {{ping|Moscow Connection}} to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.{{pb}}But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: ''a normal Google search'', or a ''Google Books search'', or a ''Google News search'', or a ''Google News archive search''? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for '''expanding ] to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects'''. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly ''recommend'' more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but ''required''? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are '''significantly''' based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.{{pb}}Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely ]). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does '''not''' require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion ''at the appropriate place'' if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for ]'s name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet ], so unless you can show that there are ''multiple'' instances of ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --] (]) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: ]. As usual, the rationale is: {{tq|Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.}}) --] (]) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner ] (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: Another example: ].<br />A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".<br />(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --] (]) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: ]. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --] (]) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::You ''do'' realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. ] (]) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::{{re|HyperAccelerated}} Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --] (]) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**::Personally, I would feel I had done a slipshod job if I made a nomination for an article with some passing-mention search results, and I did not address these in the nomination statement, or at the very least indicate that I had made the search. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (], ], ]) - dates back to ]. In fact, last year ] (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with ]. ]@] 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. {{ping|Bgsu98}} It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are ''multiple'' examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that ] already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care ''why'' they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.{{pb}}If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.{{pb}}All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I've provided some 20 examples as well. ] (]) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --] (]) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. ] (]) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a ] and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --] (]) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by ]. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is ''your'' responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. ] (]) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. ] (]) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@] has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @] revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. ] (]) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}}
*'''Oppose any sanctions''' to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to {{U|Moscow Connection}} above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:In case it was not already clear I too '''Oppose''' sanctions against @]. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whereas I '''support''' some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. ]] 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to ], my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. ] ] 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your ]. ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. ] ] 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* How about ] just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment {{tq|I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}}) and we end the discussion? ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@] I second this proposal. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Two a day is fine by me. ]] 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)<br />Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)<br />Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --] (]) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. ] ] 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**::At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::I am regrettably willing to support either of those sanctions against MC at this point. They’ve been warned multiple times about the possibility of a ], and those warnings were not heeded. While I really want to assume good faith here, their behavior resembles ], following Bgsu from nomination to nomination and casting a copious amount of aspersions on this ANI thread. Even if some of the Keep votes provide legitimate sources, the act of following a user across many discussions and refbombing them (in at least one case, as described in the discussion below) is not acceptable. ] (]) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*: And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --] (]) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the ]. The ] article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (]) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)<br />There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face ] sanctions yourself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
**::{{reply|HandThatFeeds}} Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)<br />P.S. I just came here now because Bgsu98 have edited some of my Russian figure skater articles just now. (I'm not attacking him, he hasn't ever nominated even one article of mine for AfD. Maybe because I'm trying to add a source or two to them.) --] (]) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I think this would be reasonable. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I can see how Bgsu's nomination volume can be a problem, and support his voluntary limitations and promise to provide more thorough deletion rationales. At the same time, given the kinds of sources MC has produced as "evidence" of GNG at, e.g., ], I think his perception of our notability requirements is wildly out of line with the community's. As @] pointed out in that AfD, MC basically ''repeatedly'' refdumped a bunch of interviews and couple-sentence mentions despite being informed of their ineligibility in contributing toward GNG, so if those are the kinds of sources they are bringing up now to demonstrate "nonexistent BEFORE searches" I am quite skeptical that the problem is as actionable as they claim. That, coupled with their broad disapproval (unawareness?) of our current NSPORT guidelines, makes me concerned about the notability of their own creations—are they also basing those articles on interviews and routine transactional blurbs? ] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.<p>In any event, I '''oppose any sanction or limitation on Bgsu'''. I am not sure when people got the idea that filing bulk AfDs was against policy, but they are very greatly mistaken if they do think that. ANI is not the proper venue for a community discussion on changing that policy, and I recommend the Village Pump. ] 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
*::I came across this article today: ]. was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: ]. ] ] 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.<br />Sorry that I left the articles like that, but I'm not too interested in figure skating lately, I just saw the 2025 Russian Championships results and wanted to create some stubs for some new "figure skating stars". (Back in the days, other users, ones who know how to format all the tables, would come and do everything. Just a blink of an eye, and there's a lengthy article — competitive highlights, music, everything. But now I can't see anyone. Maybe they are upset by the changes to NSKATE and stopped working on Wiki.) --] (]) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have added simply terrific sources everywhere. (Everyone has a full-fledged biography on a big media site.) --] (]) 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I simply searched on Google.com. and came out on the first page. You posted here instead of simply googling.<br />P.S. I know that this article is not my proudest moment. But I don't really edit figure skating articles lately and I have never been active much in this topic. Not on the English Misplaced Pages, anyway. --] (]) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see ]. ]] 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Also that source is very dubious. Look at their about page. Notice that they have a Guinness World Records Certificate image there? It's not got the official Guinness world records logo and there are errors in how the numbers are notated on it. Which suggests this newspaper has a fake Guinness world record cert on their about page. So, yeah, not very reliable. ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Hello! First of all, I must explain that I only came to that nomination because {{u|Berchanhimez}} asked me to find some examples of Bgsu98 not doing any WP:BEFORE research. So I went to ] and looked at the current nominations. I am very sorry if I "dumped" a lot of "bad" sources on that AfD page, but I simply wanted to show everything that I had found. And I believe that it is advisable that Bgsu98 does something like this in his future nominations. Like: "Look what I have found on Google. This, this. this. I believe it's not enough and the skater is not notable. Now let's discuss."<br />P.S. At first, I wanted to find some of his old nominations of some really big names, but I didn't know how to find them. So that's what I did, I came to the current ones. (I looked at some figure skating championships articles, but there were no red links. It seems that, after an article gets deleted, he or someone else deletes all the links to it.)<br />P.P.S. I should probably be advised to retire from this discussion. Cause I'm being attacked already. And it looks like some people are already advising me to go away. So I'm going away. I'm still hoping something good will come of this. --] (]) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I think this is good of you. You’ve provided your examples, and it’s now up to others to decide whether they are examples of violations of BEFORE or not. Thank you for refocusing your comments on specific examples rather than the back and forth that was going on.
*::I tend to agree that BEFORE should not be a private thing. If someone does a BEFORE and finds nothing, stating such is good. But if they find borderline or a bunch of insignificant coverage, then providing at least examples of that in the nomination with a short explanation as to why they do not consider them valid goes to show they actually did a BEFORE.
*::I don’t think a voluntary restriction on number of AfDs is enough to assuage the fact that the nomination statements are short and don’t address the sources that should be found during a BEFORE. But hopefully a limit of two per day will result in better nomination statements that address more borderline sources.
*::At this point it doesn’t seem there’s any appetite for sanctions, and I think MC has been explained why many of the sources they have found don’t qualify for GNG. So maybe a closure with no action overall, and hopefully going forward less nominations at a time will result in more discussion in those nominations so that issues over why the sources found aren’t adequate can occur on each individual nomination. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is this another one of those things where between the people who spend dozens of hours a week on enforcing policies and making up new policies and arguing about how to modify policies look down our noses at the people who "merely" write/edit articles when they are confused that the rules they laboriously followed for years have been randomly changed without even their knowledge, let alone their consensus? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:No, it's more like a dispute between someone sending a bunch of articles to AfD because they lacked proper sourcing, and a fan of those articles throwing everything they can at the wall to try and "save" those articles, while smearing the person who sent them to AfD. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Never mind what I said uptopic, JPxG: policies and guidelines change, from time to time. Always have, always will, and neither yours, mine nor anyone else's personal approval are a precondition of ratifying them. It is incumbent upon editors to stay abreast of such changes if they're engaged in ongoing article creation, but at any rate, they're not exempted from them. Leaving aside that the GNG and SIGCOV have been around for many years now, the changes in NSPORTS are a few years old themselves.<p>In any event, you surely can't be advocating that the most productive way to handle being in this situation is to kick, scream, and rail against the injustice of it all, as opposed to "Gosh, sorry, I didn't know. I'll go read those guidelines now, and conform hereafter." ] 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
**{{reply to|JPxG}} That's a good observation! :-)<br />But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a ] search. His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of ]. It will be more fair than <u>imitating</u> an AfD process.<br />P.S. I do appreciate the people who work on AfD and put their time in reviewing the nominations. I see that some of Bgsu98's nominations do end in a "keep" thanks to those hard-working people. But there are many more that would have been kept if a proper web search was done.<br />P.S. I really can't participate in this ANI thread anymore, cause I have tried to comment on some AfD nominations and what I've got are just accusations of disrupting/sabotaging the process. --] (]) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
**:Okay, that's enough. This is just more aspersions thrown at Bgsu98, even after all the attempts above to get Moscow to disengage. I think Moscow needs a topic ban from AfD, and a one-way IBAN with Bgsu9. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: The only thing I see about Bgsu98 in that comment is {{tq|But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like}}. That's certainly a valid view of the nominations. ] (]) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::'''Support TBAN and IBAN:''' My hand's kind of forced here. As I stated above, I really, ''really'' didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion, and MC has been warned many times to drop the stick at this point. This is the final straw for me. These read like veiled accusations, and while MC might come here and claim that I'm misunderstanding them, I just can't give the benefit of the doubt after witnessing this consistent pattern of misbehavior. ] (]) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::*First, you invite me to AfD (that I do not normally visit), then, when I do drop by, you don't like my comments and want to make me banned from there. That's unpolite, to say the least. And what IBAN, fgs? I swear I didn't even know who this Bgsu98 user was until a few days ago.<br />{{tq|My hand's kind of forced here.}} — That's just strange. You are not an admin. Do you have some anger issues? I think it is you and {{u|HyperAccelerated}} who need a ban from ANI and an IBAN from interacting with <u>me</u> because I have never seen you in my life and you are attacking me all of a sudden.<br />P.S. I hope this will be my last comment here. --] (]) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::{{tqq|Do you have some anger issues?}} And now you're ], which is ''absolutely not a good look'' on top of everything else here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::::{{reply to|The Bushranger}} I am very, very sorry. I didn't know that could be seen as "aspersions" that weren't allowed. They have also casted "aspersions" saying that I was trying to harrass Bgsu98 and sabotage the AfD process. When in fact, I just posted to ANI and never talked to Bgsu98 elsewhere. So I just wanted to reply to them in a similar manner. That was stupid of me.<br />As for my "disruption" at AfD, I simply searched for sources and showed everything I have found. (That's how I usually search for sources, sorry. This time I didn't even try to go through all the 100 pages of Google results.)<br />{{u|JPxG}} said that this was "one of those things" between people who enforce policies and the people who write articles. But it looks like some people who are attacking me are ] who make minor edits. And when they saw one billion sources I had dumped at one AfD, they didn't understand.<br />P.S. I hope I didn't say anything wrong again. I sincerely promise that I will never return to this discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience I have caused. --] (]) 07:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::::I also don't think ignorance is an acceptable excuse for these kinds of comments at this point. As Ravenswing pointed out above (), you've been here for fifteen years. You should be more than familiar with the guidelines for civility by now. I also issued a warning that your behavior was becoming sanction-worthy , and Hand also issued a warning . AfD requires users to resolve disagreements over whether to keep or discuss articles in a civil manner. Given MC's aspersion that I have "anger issues" and the refbombing at ] of Bgsu's, I have serious doubts as to whether they can be an effective participant in AfDs. ] (]) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::* {{tq|I really, ''really'' didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion}} – {{u|HyperAccelerated}}: would you say that mass nominating ''fifty'' different articles for deletion in half as many minutes with the exact same one-sentence rationale is ''not'' bot-like? ] (]) 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::*:Not entirely. I think it can be done by hand in that span of time, albeit it's a bit tedious. The use of "bot-like" in this context is questionable at best and objectionable at worst. But, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation of this remark, I'm more concerned about a broader pattern of misbehavior coming from MC. We should not mistake the forest for the trees. ] (]) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::*{{reply to|Liz}} Can this be stopped, please? I've said everything I wanted to say and went away from this discussion, but {{u|HandThatFeeds}} and {{u|HyperAccelerated}} are still attacking me and are writing something strange in bold font. It looks like they have highjacked this discussion and are leading it to some very unusual outcome.<br />P.S. I've actually found out how I "first met" Bgsu98 and I've posted my findings here on ANI, but then I deleted that post: . (I'm sorry, but Bgsu98's name looked to me like something from a random character generator. And I don't remember every sequence of characters I see on the internet. :-)) --] (]) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::On ANI, when things aren't going your way, you don't get to say "please stop the discussion". Everyone's conduct is open to discussion here - ], and {{tqq|are writing something strange in bold font}}, when the only "bold font" used by (one of) them is the (very obvous) !vote to topic-ban you, is concerning. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


{{Archive top
:Matthewedwards did not block DHawker, he formally imposed a topic ban that was agreed upon by two of the three editors who specifically responded to the ban proposal. A ] is not the same thing as a ] -- let's keep our terminology clear. ] (]) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
|status = withdrawn
|result = Probably being a bit too zealous here on the whole civility thing, so closing this before I feed the fire any more. (] me, I've become the very editor I swore to fight) ] (]) 03:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
=== ] TBAN for ] ===
Uninvolved editor here. I don't know much about ] technicalities that brought this issue here. What I do know is that ] conduct on here is clearly over the line, and suggests an inability to follow ] that suggests an inability to participate at AfD and a poor understanding of our deletion policy. Hence, I propose a topic ban from AfD. A word of personal advice for the user in question. If you have discovered new sources for an article previously deleted, first ask for an article to be restored to your user page, then improve the article, and then submit it through AfC. ] (]) 17:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. This would be for a grand total of '''three''' "incorrect" AFD !votes. That's it. Three. (] / ] / ]). Topic-banning an editor because there were three AFDs where they provided sources that were insufficient, whereas we have an editor at this discussion who was nominating potentially notable articles (and many notable articles) ''en masse'' without any search whatsoever, which included 50 AFDs in half as many minutes, is utterly ludicrous. This discussion should have been closed a long time ago with no action, or, if anything, a restriction on Bgsu98. ] (]) 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose'''. While they have at times been obtuse in this ANI thread, they do not seem to have done any actual harm outside of it. I am opposed to the existence of a "thunderdome" area where people get summoned to do combat, yelled at by a dozen people for several days, and then banned if they happen to get mad during this.
:Putting aside the rather vexed issue of under what exact circumstances an admin can enact a topic ban, and the equally important issue of exactly how such bans may be appealed, ''and'' exactly how ME came to this determination: I just happened to notice an unresolved ANI thread and decided to take the time to investigate for an hour or three, from an outside point-of-view. I probably did swallow a ] once or twice in my infancy (I'd have to ask Mum, and that was back when they had actual silver in them) and I'm admittedly one of the SPOV-with-appropriate-balance crowd, but they won't let me into the cabal. ;)
:<b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'll stand by my assessment that on balance DHawker has been a net negative at ] and a topic ban is a plus for the 'cyclo. However, I'll restate that they should be given a clear path to redemption. Specifically, what goals can they be given to prove that they are able to contribute here in a productive way, such that the topic ban can eventually be lifted? ] (]) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' Even I think this is unnecessary at this point. ] ] 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. The user is highly passionate about the subject. That’s great - and to be quite blunt, we should be encouraging that. The user identified a problematic behavior (rapid AfD nominations that did not appear, at first, to be BEFOREd properly). From what I’ve seen, those issues have been resolved - both by the user reported agreeing to slow down on their nominations and explain them better, as well as by the MC realizing that many of the coverages they’ve found are borderline ''at best'' for determining notability.
::Sorry for the incorrect use of terminology.
:This thread got out of hand because people didn’t focus on the issue at hand. And I broadly agree with jpxg above - when rather than trying to refocus the thread people just pile on someone who made a good faith report, ''of course they’ll get a bit mad and make some mistakes that are borderline NPA/civility violations''. But ask yourself this - is recommending a BOOMERANG for a problem that’s resolved not inflaming the situation ''more''? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::While I will not argue the community's census on preventing further edit warring by blocking DHawker from editing the article, I stand by the belief that the user is constructive more often than not on the talk page.
::*'''Oppose''' As @] said this discussion should have been closed a long time ago. @] has been very uncivil at times on this thread and others, particularly in their language and questioning of other editors' motives and abilities, but hopefully they will learn from what has been said during this discussion and will not repeat this behaviour. I was in favour of giving @] a chance and I do not want to be hypocritical by not doing so with MC too.
::I think given that the complaint issued was regarding a violation of 3RR, the goal they can be given is to allow access to the talk page, and see if they can constructively assist in the construction of the article without engaging in soapbox behavior or endless repetition of shot-down arguments (which a quick look at the ] will reveal is not really happening). The editor should be encouraged to branch out and avoid being a single-purpose account, but being an SPA is only discouraged, not prohibited. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::] (]) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles ==
::: I could see lifting the talkpage ban in, say, three months, and go indefinite if they continue posting disruptively. Also, I have notified DHawker of this discussion. - ] <small>(])</small> 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


] has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of ] and ] seems to be lacking substantially.
::::Would agree with 2/0 with the additional requirement that they exhibit a willingness to ''improve'' other areas of Misplaced Pages. When an SPA editor becomes a problem they should be encouraged to "broaden their interests" rather than focusing on a single article. Single article problematic behavior suggests a conflict of interest. ] (]) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


* was deleted for ]
Whilst I admit I am an advocate for colloidal silver and currently an SPA I do object to being called a 'promoter.' Yes my edits have mostly been 'positive' but that has simply been (IMHO) to try and put some balance into an article that was unrelentingly negative. The article already contained just about every possible negative statement that could be made about colloidal silver, and usually those statements were repeated many times throughout the article. I believe all my edits were factual and sourced and had some validity. I never tried to include claims about the theraputic value of colloidal silver or any anecdotal comments such as 'colloidal silver cured my dog'. My 3RR violations came about because my edits were being totally deleted by other editors who were putting in little more effort than a keystroke. Mastcell continuously accuses me of 'watering down' and 'contextualization' but surely thats a matter of opinion. In many cases I could accuse him of the same tactics . Regarding the length of my arguments in the Talk pages, I think this indicates the lengths I have gone to to try and win agreement rather than get involved in edit warring. This is a Fringe topic so expanding the article is not as simple as just citing another PubMed reference. But basically I just ended up arguing with Mastcell and Arthur Rubin who obviously are opponents of colloidal silver so I was rarely making any progress. Fortunately other editors have now become involved with the article so I hope things will improve. I actually welcome this discussion regarding my 'banning' as I hope it will bring closer attention to what is going on at Colloidal Silver. With due respect to Franamax, who has made an effort to understand whats going on, its very difficult to come in late and get the full picture, especially as most of the earlier debates have now been archived or deleted.


* on ] and ] grounds
I would like to propose this course of action: Ban me from editing colloidal silver for the next three months but let me continue to make suggestions in the Talk pages. If I prove disruptive or abusive then take further action. ] (]) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


* on ] and ]
:I think we agree that more eyes on ] would be useful. Single-purpose accounts are not inherently problematic - some of our best articles are written by single-purpose accounts. But a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to ] ''is'' a problem. I personally feel (as an involved party) that at this point a total ban from colloidal-silver-related pages would be most appropriate. I don't have a problem with setting an expiration date on the talk-page ban, but I would like for there to be some relatively efficient means to re-raise the issue if there has been no improvement.<p>Regarding a path to redemption, I would ''strongly'' recommend editing some other articles to get a better sense of how Misplaced Pages works, and how its policies are applied. A commitment to 1RR, or at least to avoid edit-warring and utilize dispute resolution, would be ideal if the article-ban is ever lifted. I think that the talk-page issues could probably be solved with more uninvolved input, or if they were decoupled from the edit-warring. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


*They've been warned about ] and .
* I see no good reason to amend the restrictions, nor any sensible reason to revisit this after the restrictions were enacted from such a recent community consensus. The community view was clear; please move on guys as nothing is going to change for 3-6 months. We don't want to even hear the possibility that you, DHawker, "prove to be disruptive or abusive again"; please eliminate the doubt for us by finding an area you can edit where this problem will not arise to begin with. ] (]) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
::If you check, the consensus was to extend the block, which was done. ME then revisited this closed issue and added their own additional 2 cents to the block. I'm glad wikipedia's justice system is as corrupt and wishy-washy as Canada's or the US. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
:::I'm aware of your views on how DHawker should be sanctioned, but to say that Matthewedwards added his "2 cents" to the block is out of line and fundamentally flawed. The matter was not "closed" after the block extension (which incidentally, was enacted promptly to reflect the timing issue). Even if the discussion was archived by a bot, the community consensus was not limited to extending 1 block. Effectively, Matthewedwards enacted the community consensus which remained unenacted, and saved me having to make a formal call to the community to do its job (by enacting what was unenacted). So the fundamental problem here is not with the system, but rather regrettably, your own understanding - you are responsible for opening this thread when you decided to voice your additional "2 cents" about an action that was, and remains, approved by the community. ] (]) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Most recently there's ], which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.
::::Yes, the community of 3 people. You have a grand understanding of a jury. Why is it that 3RR on any non-fringe topic warrants at best a 24hour block, yet the second its on a fringe theory, the "community" (Aka the several banded editors that disapprove of fringe theories) makes all effort to expel them when they have done nothing worthy of that. Your community consensus is a three person brigade. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. ] but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to ] someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a ] article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. ] 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Continuing to harp on about a ridiculous notion that Misplaced Pages is a justice system, or the community is a jury, is really becoming old. Please move on. Someone please close this already. ] (]) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


:Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. ] ] 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah quickly, shut it before anyone that has an actual neutral and unhindered opinion on the subject matter makes a comment. What do you call this board if its not essentially a place to bring justice to editors acting out of place or in contempt of the purpose of the encyclopedia? You still skipped my question on why (Even repeated, but occasional) 3RR violations warrants a topic ban with fringe articles but nothing even comparatively close anywhere else on the site? I look through the block log and see users such as , who was blocked 5 times for 3RR over the span of 2 months before finely getting a ban. DHawker has had 3, two of which occurred nearly a year ago. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::I checked this ] which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Actually I think I've only had 1 previous 3rr violation. I incurred a brief extension to it for some misdemeanor due mainly to my inexperience but it was all one episode - about a year ago. I'm not a serial offender.] (]) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
:*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
:*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
:*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
:*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
:*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
:*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
:*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
:Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}}
::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}}
::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}}
::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


* The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::My opinion is (and was) entirely neutral and unhindered, and I have no view on the particular subject, and I proposed said editing restrictions after taking a look at the editing in question. Despite this, I still welcome (and have welcomed) more opinion - the fact that there were no other objections spoke volumes; there's been no change, which is why the discussion ought to be closed, rather than dragged out because you remain the only user who has a problem. This board, much like most other admin noticeboards, simply exists to help bring community attention to particular incidents - this often involvesenforcing any necessary measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, particularly in the areas affected by the incident(s) and in relation to the users involved in those incidents. This is not a justice system; it's merely a noticeboard.
* Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:*'''Support''' Ban.
:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
::I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. ] 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is editor is still creating dog poor articles ]. This is the second in days thats been speedied. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. ] ] 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead ==
:::::::It really should not surprise you that I stop answering your questions, when you show all appearances of not making the effort to look through the comments I made at ]. In other words, it wasn't mere 3RR violations that led to me proposing and continuing to endorse the topic ban. Finally, the case of SOPHIA is not one that you can compare to here, and note, incidents can only be dealt with as and when attention is brought to them. SOPHIAN was community banned; that editor lost their privilleges - they cannot edit ANYWHERE on Misplaced Pages. Unless DHawker violates his restrictions (wherein his fate will be no different to SOPHIA's), DHawker retains all of his editing privilleges except that he is not allowed to edit 2 particular pages on Misplaced Pages (topic ban), and he is not allowed to use more than 1 account (account restriction). Do you get it yet? ] (]) 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=RowanElder has apologised and their comments have been explained. Jwa05002 ignored the ] and has been indef'd with TPA revoked. Looks like we're done here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::::DHawker, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring does not require an editor to violate 3RR. ] (]) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This occurred on the ], on the talk page section of ] @] decided they could say I couldn't ask for civility in a discussion after it became what I found uncivil. This discussion was already ended. They made comments that I couldn't ask for civility because apparently my userpage was uncivil. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic and incompetent because they saw I mentioned I was Autistic on my page and then linked to the competence required article. {{rpa}} and then went on a rant about how Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow "severely mentally ill people edit" and how it's sad that Misplaced Pages has devolved to it. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help. I shouldn't need to say more really. ] (]) 06:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


:Oh forgot to @] ] (]) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) {{rpa}}
:No, I still do not understand why DHawker is given a topic ban for an offense that normally never incurs a topic ban. I could provide plenty of examples, all of which you'd just shoot down and say "Oh... Well that doesn't apply to this situation" because it simply proves how wrong this is.
:Fine, call this a noticeboard. Regardless, it is the place where incidents are brought up, tried, and punishments applied. These are the components of a justice system, but this is besides the point.
:You claim to have no view on the subject and yet you placed a vote. Does this mean you reject said vote? In which case it becomes 1 (me) vs 1 (Franamax). We could also look at the fact that you voted ''All'' which means your vote is essentially thrown away since you voted for no particular remedy. My vote is thrown away because I am involved. This leaves Franamax. '''There's your consensus!'''
:I obviously read the entire thread. It reads like every other incident involving a fringe theory. I'll spell it out: B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Complete and total mockery. The editor is '''not a sockpuppet''', he merely evaded the block because he is not as up to speed with all our policies. Yes, you have a small bit that defines that as a sockpuppet, but thats amidst the several paragraphs that describe them as '''malicious editors''', which DHawker is not. The evasion wasn't malicious and was a simple reply at the colloidal silver talk page. I reposted his comment as my own and will gladly post it here to show how evil and destructive this user is and why he must be blocked from editing his subject of interest. Why? Because he believes the theory, and thats just too annoying for the editors who want to go on painting the absolute nonsense fringe theory picture and reject all positive influence on the subject matter (Note: I am not referring to MastCell here, I'm referring to the scores of biased elite editors who have taken ownership of each particular fringe theory). To hell, call me a fringe theorist, but it smells like a friggen conspiracy theory! '''This BS needs to change'''


*Akechi - typically, linking to specific ] rather than talk page sections is the best thing to do when making an ANI report; that is, linking {{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269116979}} and {{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269119175}}, which I assume are the comments you're referring to. Procedural niceties aside, I think you have a right to be upset - the comment by Jwa05002 seems to reflect a very ugly attitude toward mental illness, and RowanElder's remarks are incredibly patronizing - I don't think the comment in which {{they|RowanElder}} say {{tq|I hope Misplaced Pages can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack.}}{{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269120723}} could have been more perfectly calculated to infuriate its target if that were {{their|RowanElder}} intention, and when {{they|RowanElder}} commented {{tq|...you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here}}{{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269139598}} it does not at all come across like someone who is AGFing. I hope the community will agree that the conduct of these two users is not acceptable and make that clear to them. ] <small>(he/him · ] · ])</small> 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
*:Who would have more relevant expertise than special education experts, here? Honestly? In dealing with good faith but disruptive contributions to something a lot like classwork?
*:Please assume good faith for me as well, here. ] (]) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::You cannot substitute your personal experience for ], nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to ] such as {{tq|disruptive incompetence}}. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I am definitely confused about this.
*:::First, I have seen and been told "competence is required" many times and I generally assumed good faith constructive criticism and policy enforcement there rather than that the person invoking "competence is required" was making a personal attack. I have had a lot of trouble understanding what is regarded as incivility and not in this community.
*:::Second, it seems prima facie that editors do analyze one another frequently, for instance I was just analyzed and will be further analyzed in this incident notice discussion so long as it continues, so I am confused what you mean here. ] (]) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::] is an evaluation ''only'' when users have demonstrated repeated inability to edit collaboratively due to either refusal to read the rules, or inability comprehend them. It's not a blanket for you to insult a user by stating their edits are {{tq|disruptive incompetence}}.
*::::Your second point is rhetorical wordplay, and does not reflect well on you. Knock it off. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I don't understand this and I'm not doing wordplay. I'm genuinely confused. But I'll knock it off anyway; I'm going to take a break. ] (]) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::As a disabled person who currently works in special education, there are ''many'' reasons we wouldn't want "special education experts" (or their suggestions) dispatched to deal with a Certain Kind of Contributor. For one, it's a bit patronizing as described above--why do certain editors have to be dealt with under certain different people or rules? It's also worth noting that a lot of special education professionals, even ones who believe they're doing good things, often adopt practices that can be hurtful or problematic--this is all anecdotal, of course, but a number of my coworkers will miss very obvious potential causes of student distress just because they don't get distressed by the same thing, and at least one of my other coworkers was directly ableist to another of my coworkers behind her back without even realizing that's what she was doing. If there's anyone who can speak to best practices about interaction it's probably people with the disability in question (i.e. the ] stance), but to be honest, in practice, Misplaced Pages's existing guidelines and policies regarding user interaction and editing do a pretty good job of setting the ground rules and describing what you need to do to edit collaboratively in a productive way. - ] (]) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::My comments did not communicate my intent well to this community, and I have apologized for that. I recognize these concerns, and if I had written longer comments, adding these concerns would have been among my first extensions of what I wrote. I was disruptively incompetent when it came to speaking to the sensitivities in this community. ] (]) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:(0) The discussion had seemed inconclusive to me rather than ended. My prior experience as an editor has been mostly on pages where weeks can go between talk messages easily, so if this was a mistake it was a newcomer's mistake of not understanding the different tempo on this page.
:(1) I did not say @] could not ask for civility; I did find it ironic that they would ask for civility given that their userpage at that time seemed quite uncivil. I do think this indicates incompetence at judging civility and incivility and I, possibly erroneously, did not think it would be an aspersion or personal attack to say so on the basis of the immediate and policy-relevant (disruptive editing policy, explained by "competence is required") evidence. There is a "competence is required" principle and I have seen it invoked without violating the "no personal attacks" policy, though I'll be first to admit I don't understand the lines there very well.
:(2) I did not endorse or "go along with" @]'s characterization of @] as schizophrenic: I passed over it in silence trying "not to take the bait" of what could have easily become personal attacks (not that I thought @] was making a personal attack there, more like personally despairing of the challenge of finding consensus about reality with self-identified schizophrenics and autistics). I flatly disagreed with @] that "this is what Misplaced Pages has become."
:(3) I do endorse a general principle that when mental illness compromises an editor's competence, they should not edit Misplaced Pages in the domains in which they are thereby incompetent. I do believe "competence is required" and I don't know why mental illness would possibly be an exception. (I can't imagine what fun I might have had editing in the archaeoastronomy area recently if Misplaced Pages did allow that exception!)
:(4) I do hope that the admins and arbs and the community as a whole will figure out good, humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. ] (]) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. ] (]) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::''You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill''. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, of course: I did not call anyone mentally ill much less diagnose anyone. I pointed out that an editor self-identified as autistic without intending that to be an attack. And I won't even do that again, since "assuming good faith" is not extending to "assuming that references to mental illness are not necessarily attacks." Probably correctly, in retrospect for me! But the "assume good faith" policy has been something I've myself been incompetent to understand in its community-consensus application so far on Misplaced Pages, and so I was disruptively incompetent and I've both apologized for that and said I would avoid doing it again. ] (]) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The user in question has described themselves as schizophrenic in previous posts. Schizophrenia by definition is a mental illness.
:::::] ] (]) 20:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I didn't you are thinking of another user I will not name. ] (]) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{edit conflict}} (but I did the work, so I'm posting it) {{Non-admin comment|admin}} OP, you should provide diffs. You did link to the conversation, but every specific instance of untowardness you mention should be cited directly, as a courtesy to the admins' time. But I read the whole conversation and don't like it, so I did some legwork for you. {{tq|They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic}}. This edit was amended. {{tq|Jwa proceeded to come in and say I was a schizophrenic}}. {{tq|RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help}}.


:I view assuming an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence to not actually be ], but I defer. I don't know that this warrants being at ANI or if it's just bad behavior, but the schizophrenia thing certainly deserves an apology from both of them. I'm not involved. Just providing diffs. POST EDIT CONFLICT: I also don't buy Rowan's argument that they weren't going along with the schizophrenia thing. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{user|Rodgarton}}
::"You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? ] (]) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not generically assume "an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence" but specifically suggested that their social judgment about particular incivility was incompetent in this case. I would never do the former, and frankly it is an aspersion to suggest I did. ] (]) 07:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? ] (]) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. ] (]) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. ] (]) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::"You obviously have never met an Autistic person" is wildly uncivil, ungrounded, personal attack. I am really lost here. ] (]) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry I didn't give diffs I'm kinda new to this stuff. Thank you for putting in the effort as well. ] (]) 07:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


*], you are revealing a lot of personal information here about other editors that might need to be revision deleted. Please do not do that in the future. There are a lot of BLP violations in this discussion so far and assumptions about "mental illness" as well that are distressing to see from other editors. But, Akechi, I also notice that you are spending all of your talk on your User page and talk pages like ] instead of editing to improve articles. Your own User page states {{tq|I'd rather not edit Misplaced Pages and rather just discuss disputes, move requests and talk about usage of sources or claims of bias, I'm not very good at source editing}} which is not a good sign for an editor on this project. Jwa05002 is also spending all of their time on ] so maybe you both could use a partial block from this talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
This user, a single purpose account promoting ], engages in egregious abuse of sources. He came to my attention when I was looking at a long section he added to ], a featured article, which contained many surprising claims. When I checked the sources, I discovered a pattern of consistently stating things that went far beyond what the source justified.
*:I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. ] (]) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I am also looking to get into editing articles, though I do not have the time to be a full time editor. ] (]) 07:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*Those comments by @] and @] are beyond the pale. Stating that mental illness or neurodivergence is a ] issue should never be tolerated, particularly given it's highly likely that a lot of our community are neurodiverse or mentally ill. Blocks should follow for both editors. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Given that the editors seem a lot more interested in arguing on talk pages, I'd suggest there's some ] going on. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I made exactly this point that there are a lot on Misplaced Pages in one of my comments about a likely unintended consequence of @]'s incivility on their userpage, which, I quote, included "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." ] (]) 07:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. ] (]) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::And no the lack of am is not a typo. ] (]) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Please assume good faith! Autism did not upset me and nor did pansexuality. But "I hope I upset people who do not share my values" cannot possibly be civil discourse. ] (]) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's not my values it's my existence, being Autistic or Pansexual isn't values, it's just how I am. ] (]) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::At ] you wrote: "{{tq|I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see ]}}". I don't see any other interpretation for that than an act with malice directed towards a neurodiverse editor because of their neurodivergence. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that ''because'' autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." ] (]) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. ] (]) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I was not assuming that you could not. I saw what I thought was a terrible misjudgment that @] was struggling to see in any good faith way and suggesting a way to recover good faith, but without excusing the brazen incivility I thought I saw. ] (]) 08:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not say mental illness is in itself a WP:CIR issue. I said that, at times, particular mental illness will imply particular WP:CIR issues. What in the world is going on? ] (]) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Jwa heavily implied and you didn't call him out. ] (]) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've quoted exactly what you said above just now. You don't have much wiggle room there. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and ''exculpatory''! ] (]) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's not social blindnesses it's a sometimes struggle to pick up on social cues (Autistic people display a range of symptoms and some differ), also cool you do think I can't make social judgements. ] (]) 08:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Your ill-founded judgments aren't doing you any favours here. You should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi and then having the good sense to shut up before someone starts a block discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. ] (]) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's ''absolutely'' the way literally everybody else has taken it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. ] (]) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::(I repeated a variant of this apology below, more personally to @], and Akechi graciously accepted the apology there. Thanks again @].) ] (]) 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


*:It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, ] policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is {{tpq|The Agent Of Chaos}}, I find that far more troubling than the other self-declarations. The most generous interpretation is that the editor is trying too hard to be ironic and amusing, like the new hipster pizzeria in my home town that actually makes great innovative pizzas. But combined with the other self-declarations, I am confronted with legitimate questions about what this editor's goals and intentions actually are here, and I should remind the editor that actual agents of chaos get blocked pretty promptly on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The clearest example is probably one where he said two completely different things in different articles, with the same source. One article contained information that completely blew the claim he made in the other out of the water - and he edited the one that showed the other claim false first.,
*::Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. ] (]) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Like it's my name, I know there is an editor that has The Liar at the end of their username do we assume they are one. ] (]) 08:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm just stating my mental disabilities dude why is this a problem, are you gonna get mad at my userbox that says the same thing. ] (]) 08:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Akechi The Agent Of Chaos}}, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? ] (]) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. ] (]) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::@], the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to ] stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. ] (]) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm going to stop talking now. ] (]) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::For the admins' consideration, this reply is (I hope) partly because of me . So it sounds like they're willing to take advice. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::If you want to be helpful, start ] or review the ] looking for vandalism that needs reverting (make sure you set the filters appropriately) or anything that directly assists with the quality of articles. If you don't do at least something to help with building the project, it won't take long for others to decide that you are ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Thanks to Closhund's suggestions I actually started copy editing, it's not that scary anymore. I think I was just overwhelmed with editing massive cyclopedia. ] (]) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is an interesting point - I posted a userbox saying I have ADHD, along with liking videogames and cats, as I see it as a part of me that I absolutely hated for decades until I was diagnosed recently. I posted it as a way to perhaps ask for a little patience, as I might be more prone to long posts or changing my edits after having another thought or idea (impulse control is an issue with ADHD). In my case, I intended it as an explanation, ''not'' an excuse. I still really and expect to be treated the same as anyone else.
*::Nevertheless, I angered someone earlier, who weaponised my ADHD and used it to claim I was incompetent and shouldn't be here. Quite a few admins were singled out in those posts, but they specifically focused on my ADHD for an inordinate amount of time. They were also cut and pasted into other people's Talk pages.
*::Whilst I'm well aware this was a malicious user and am ''not'' ashamed of my ADHD, nor will I hide it (I've done that for far too long), I'm now thinking I should remove those boxes - this is the internet, you can't tell what other people are thinking and it's easy to misunderstand others.
*::Neurodivergence is a relatively-new condition (compared to depression, anxiety etc. it's only really been accepted in the past few decades), so there are a lot of misunderstandings and stigma attached to it. The prevalence of self-diagnosis and misinformation on social media doesn't help, as there are those who do want attention and/or use it as an excuse.
*::I'm not sure what I'm going to do to be honest. I might remove the userboxes since they're apparently doing more harm than good. I've got to work now, but I'll decide later & just wanted to put this view forward. ] (]) 08:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::BTW Apologies if this is now off-topic, the thread was moving really fast! ] (]) 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::], userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Exactly right - I was aware of the negative perception, but someone who's looking for a reason to dislike another person will usually pick up on stuff like that first since it's an easy target. My workplace has been incredibly supportive so I've been letting my guard down, but that's not really a good idea online. Plus the userboxes were all shiny & colourful so I headed straight for them without thinking!
:::::I don't know if I'll keep the ADHD box since it may be doing more harm than good but the cat one will stay for now, since my furry demonic familiar demands it. ] (]) 14:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::With due respect, Cullen, I very strongly disagree with you when you say {{tq|"They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment"}}. This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way and arguably a failure to AGF. Since neurodivergent people are quite literally ''defined'' by their neurotypes, this is no more or less self-identifying than, for example, gender orientation declarations; both are useful for editors wishing to meet, work with, and, importantly, take advice from editors who share identities and thus can relate. I second what Liz says below.
:::I have no comment on this particular situation otherwise as an apology appears to have been made. ] ] 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If you don't mind, I've apologized and I meant it, and I'm trying to understand what I could have done differently at a finer grain than "never engage about any issue of mental health with respect to competence on Misplaced Pages again," which will be my safety-first default from here until I do get better understanding.
::::This reply confused me, and if I can ask without being seen to be hunting for chinks in armor or trying to litigate after the issue is resolved or anything like that, @], was this meant to be a disagreement that {{tq|They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment}}, i.e., a disagreement that that particular form of ableist prejudice exists? Or is it a disagreement with the prejudice, and thus an implicit attribution of the prejudice to @]? The latter did not seem like the most natural good faith reading of @]'s comment, but the former doesn't make sense to me together with {{tq|This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way}} since it doesn't seem sensible that recognizing the fact of ableist prejudice would be in itself ableist (it seems the opposite, that recognizing such prejudices exist is often part of fighting such prejudices).
::::I've been incompetent at judging what people would interpret of my posts so far, and if I'm being incompetent in this interpretation in this reply in some blameworthy way I'll happily apologize for this as well, but I'm genuinely lost and would appreciate some more light on this if it's not a pain to provide it. ] (]) 15:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of ''those'' and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - ] (]) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @] would have said that together with {{tq|I very strongly disagree with you}} when I didn't see @] necessarily endorsing the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" in their original comment, just the belief "they are often perceived as claims for preferential treatment," which would not itself imply @] has or agrees with that perception. ] (]) 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for your prior reply, and don't worry about this one after all. I'm going to stop trying to engage here and stop trying to figure out my confusion, I've had enough. ] (]) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] To be entirely fair, the phrase "Agent of Chaos" is fairly common in various forms of media and seems more likely to be a reference to something (], or , or , etc.) than an indicator that the user is acting in bad faith. ] (]) 04:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|CambrianCrab}}, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. ] (]) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Would you like me to change my name if it concerns you that much ] (]) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I get like username policy and names shouldn't imply intent to troll and stuff but if we actually enforced that tons of people would have to change their usernames, once again I know a user that has The Liar at the end of their name but they aren't one. I feel like the most reasonable assumption is that my username is either a joke or a reference, as it is both. I feel like it's not assuming of good faith to think I'm an actual agent of chaos just because my username says I am. ] (]) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Cullen, I think this is reaching. Just as my name is a play on words, Agent of Chaos is also a tongue in cheek username that does not strike me as indicative of the user's intent to cause harm. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I agree this is reaching and one thing i hate is when people try to find something completely unrelated and throw a fit about it ]] 20:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Cyberwolf is fiction so… ]] 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Mental illness can create a competency issue in pretty much any aspect of life. For example, a person can be found too mentally ill to stand trial in a court. I’m not sure why wikipedia should be an exception.
::It’s unfortunate and sad for sure, but it’s simply a fact that some people are too mentally ill to be objective, reasonable, and yes even competent.
::Obviously there are varying degrees of mental illness, and some are able to control it better than others. But there should definitely be a threshold where reasonable can say “this person is too mentally ill to edit” ] (]) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that's not a judgement any complete stranger can make over the internet, including on Misplaced Pages. You could definitely call attention to disputed content or problematic conduct without making the assumption that it's connected to the disability of someone you do not know personally based on what you think you know about a specific editor, their disability, or how the latter affects the former. People can definitely come to consensuses that users cannot edit constructively without needing to declare that it's ''because they have a specific disability''. Connecting the two like that is very likely to instead come across as (and/or ''be'') a personal attack. - ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


:@] I apologize completely and unreservedly for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by you (and everyone else who has said something here so far, but especially by you because your feelings were the ones hurt) as saying that you were less competent than other editors because you were autistic.
26 July, at ], he makes the following change
:That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. ] (]) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you, I accept your apology ] (]) 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The bottom line is that '''every single editor''' is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. ] (]) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will keep that in mind ] (]) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Once Jwa receives this I won't get involved. ] (]) 08:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks for that grace. ] (]) 08:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. ] (]) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I've meant it from the beginning that I didn't intend to use @]'s autism as a disqualification of them. I considered the incivility disqualifying and I considered their comments about civility to show additional disqualifying incompetence of social judgment, and then I intended to highlight their self-identified autism as a possible way of reconciling the incivility and incompetence with good faith to cool and stop the uncivil running conflict with @] (who I thought was also responsible for incivility and making poor judgment calls, such as moving from the specific/local frustration about incompetence and incivility (actually blameworthy) to general/global frustration with neurodivergence (not blameworthy)).
*::::This I now see was naive and strongly against community norms, in particular viewed as unacceptably patronizing and ableist in itself, and so I'm not going to do that again here and I do find it easy to make a complete and genuine apology for having broken those norms.
*::::In my friendships and collaborations with autistic people in offline life, I will continue to do what has made my friendships and collaborations with them work so far. This sometimes does include very direct conversation about when to step away from fights when someone is missing social cues, but in my context it is rarely blamably patronizing or ableist to do so since there's an already strong expectation of respect for neurodivergence (and in the rare cases it is blamably patronizing or ableist, I also listen to that and stop as quickly as possible, like I am here). One of my main takeaways here is that on Misplaced Pages, the general patterns of unwanted but de facto incivility mean that there is not strong expectation that people do already respect the neurodivergent, in fact the reverse: a pretty strong expectation that communication that could be disrespect for the neurodivergent is disrespect for the neurodivergent. That seems true (that too many people don't respect neurodivergence) and important, and insofar as I wasn't already seeing it, it was because I was tripping over the "assume good faith" policy trying not to assume others were prejudiced against the neurodivergent and/or disrespecting the neurodivergent (since that seemed like it would be assuming bad faith).
*::::I don't yet understand how to reconcile "assume good faith" and "proactively defend people from systemic prejudices" very well. Off of Misplaced Pages I just don't assume good faith! It's something I think a lot of contemporary American political discourse has been choking on, and I think it'll be worth my time to continue thinking about it with this additional information from this experience. ] (]) 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Hey to be honest this is a model example on how to apologize on and explain your behavior and how you want to improve here. This is what we need more of. I read through your apology several times and can’t detect bad faith from you. You’ve done well and I’ll admit working with neurodivergent individuals can be/will be challenging w/o pretty much whole life experience. I’ve made mistakes. We all will. :3 ]] 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Thank you, this means a lot. I was worried it was just being taken as more bad faith when I wasn't getting other replies earlier. I've had a terrible time here and I need a break. ] (]) 23:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::No you did great ]] 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Thanks. Really, I do mean it. Still, on my own terms I don't feel at all good and I should take some time away. ] (]) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::wikipedians who are in this big of ani and are the subjects, should take a big break this is the most scary stressful and some what notorious page ]] 00:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:While I can't comment on @] as I've not interacted with them, I will note that I already reported @] concerning (in part) some of these issues about a month ago. People wanting to judge any misbehavior, with full context, may want to read ] where I engaged with them on it, as well as ], which has specific diffs (all of this was when my username was LaughingManiac).
{|class=wikitable
:For full disclosure, since I was fairly heavily involved at ] and promised to disengage to avoid ], I'll attempt to refrain from getting too deep into this particular discussion. It also bears mentioning that I ended up retracting the report myself, as can be seen above. Part of it was based on my own experience as a mentally ill person and expectations concerning how the topic be handled, and I found that Jwa05002 made a valid point that personal experience cannot dictate neutral Misplaced Pages editing, something which seemed supported by ], specifically the last sentence. So, I closed the report (with the - ] - mutual understanding that there would be no more ] on Jwa05002's part), and disengaged.
!Previous
:I can say that my personal view of this subject is that there were problematic undertones both in how Jordan Neely's mental illness had been weaponized by Penny's defense, as well as in how it was being discussed on the talk page. I found Jwa05002's own mentions and utilization of the topic very offensive, to me personally, which is (in part) why I disengaged, since because I was personally affected in this case, I felt it would be difficult for me to participate neutrally. On a semi-related point, I do feel that Misplaced Pages in general would benefit from stricter guidelines concerning "personal experiences" beyond merely dismissing them, given that the manner in which some of the content in cases like these is treated, as well as the overt and rampant generalizations or prejudiced discourse against already vulnerable populations, may well discourage marginalized editors from contributing. But, this is ultimately a different topic that would be better suited for ].
!
:I will also mention, however, that it'd be rather disappointing in my view if (which to me reads like a personal attack, never even mind that the notion that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages is deeply troubling to me) is allowed to stand.
|-
:{{underline|EDIT: For ''fuller'' disclosure, I will note that I was pinged to this discussion by Akechi mentioning me, in diffs ] I'm unsure whether this counts as ]? Hopefully not - my intent here is merely to provide context concerning a dispute in which I was originally involved in, which seems relevant, if not identical, to this one in my eyes.}} ] (]) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
|The first meta-analysis was performed by ] in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced ] in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis.
:I know little about the Jordan Neely case, and have not investigated it in particular, but have to give a few words about Misplaced Pages editing by people who are mentally ill or neurodivergent. I have a mental illess (I don't know if it's severe enough for {{u|Jwa05002}}, but I lost about half my working life because of it), and, largely through that, I know plenty of people with autism, ADHD and schizophrenia. I don't choose to display my mental status on my user page, but reveal it when relevant. I just checked and a have made nearly 49,000 edits since 2007. I don't think anyone has spotted my mental condition in all that time, because I take reponsibility for my editing and do not edit when I'm not up to it. If all the people with a mental illess or neurodivergence left Misplaced Pages it would be a much poorer place, and might not even exist. Some people with those conditions are very good editors, and some are not so good, just like "normal" people. I hope we can accept such people just as we can accept people of different genders, nationalities, sexual preferences etc. ] (]) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
|The first meta-analysis was performed by ] in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced ] in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. <font color=red><b>. However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication ''Extra-sensory perception after sixty years'', authored by Duke University psychologists ], ], and associates.<ref>Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), ''Proceedings of the 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, University of Vienna'', (pp. 1-13)</ref> This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ] experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the '']'').</font></b>
::There are absolutely varying degrees of mental illness and it wasn’t my intention to imply anyone who suffers from a mental illness should not edit Misplaced Pages pages.
|}
::in this case, my comment was directed at one specific editor.
::its unfortunate for sure, but some people simply aren’t capable of being objective and reasonable enough to edit pages.
::this admin page is full of examples of users being blocked from editing because they simply aren’t able to handle the responsibility that comes with it. ] (]) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Have I displayed any of that because you've kinda been urging me to stop being on the talk page for a while because of my extreme bias, which I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. This just seems like you found a more reasonable way to try and get me to stop editing. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@], rather than defending your comments on the article's talk page you should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I went back and looked through that entire discussion (about schizophrenia) and I see that there were 2 different editors besides me during the conversation.
::::so I do apologize for conflating the two of you (Akechi and whoever the other editor was)
::::I honestly did not realize Akechi was not the editor who volunteered they had a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s for sure my mistake. Akechi, I apologize for implying you’d been diagnosed with a mental illness. ] (]) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. ] (]) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.
::::::Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 05:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That is not you're decision to make and mental illnesses can vary in condition, we judge people's actions not how they were born. ] (]) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Jwa05002, I know many people with schizophrenia who would be perfectly capable of writing Misplaced Pages articles. We block/ban people because of what they do on Misplaced Pages, not because of whether they happen to have a broken leg, cancer or schizophrenia. ] (]) 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Just stating one more time that I never agreed with this position. ] (]) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, just in case anyone finds it meaningful I'll reaffirm my commitment to these principles as well. I specifically avoided "severe enough" language because I don't think any "overall amount" would be relevant. I spoke about impacts on specific, relevant domains. Someone can be dealing with crippling catatonic panic attacks or having outright hallucinations offline and also still be participating in Misplaced Pages constructively and valuably when they're up for it. All my evidence is that both have in fact happened in real cases, constructively and for the best. My primary principle here was that editors should not contribute where they are disruptively incompetent for any reason, with mental illness simply not a special reason (and similarly for forms of neurodivergence I don't actually like to conflate with flat "mental illness", such as many forms of autism spectrum conditions). ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I just came across this and i would like to say excuse my language what the fuck is this behavior. The correlations in the talk page are absolutely ridiculous and are all blatant attacks. I’m ignoring if akechi is right or wrong that doesn’t matter(to me). These attacks are not only focused on akechi but all neurodivergent contributors to Misplaced Pages. It’s disheartening that this happens. What does schizophrenia have to do with a users ability to edit. This place is for everyone who wants to contribute (within policy of course). those who degrade users because of who they are, they are trying to push people who they deem not to be “normal”. The fucking disrespect makes my blood boil. As someone who made a mistake which was directly related to my mental problems. If i was attacked for That behavior you bet I wouldn’t have held back my anger as much as akechi did. As a neurodivergent person and one who takes care of other neurodivergents. These people are more than helpful to the Misplaced Pages they all have certain content hyperfixations planes, military, cars, racing, boats you name it. Everyone has a purpose here. Shame on those who think otherwise ]] 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also if you would like @] please explain why you think schizophrenia prohibits users from being competent.<br>In my experience with a schizophrenic friend most of his schizophrenia is just seeing scary things. He is smart he does well in school. Tell me why he couldn’t contribute ]] 19:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Block proposal - Jwa05002 ===
{{atop|I have Indefinitely blocked Jwa05002 per consensus here. ]] 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I propose an indef block for Jwa05002 as consequence of their statements at ] where they wrote <blockquote>Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Misplaced Pages articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Misplaced Pages has devolved into. It’s sad really"</blockquote> and then at ] where they just wrote <blockquote>I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.
Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles.</blockquote>
All of the ], bar one which was an edit they shouldn't have been making per ], are at ] and ] and it therefore appears that the editor is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:Not sure if I can place any votes because of my involvement but @] has in my opinion been trying to scare some user away from comment on ], including me where they said (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#c-Jwa05002-20250101224800-Akechi_The_Agent_Of_Chaos-20241230034200)
The claim he makes there is probably false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, and lists numerous examples that certainly sound comprehensive, including Pearson's. His cite for the claim is to a ''conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference'' - however, more interestingly, he went on to make a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology, which directly conflicts with this. :
:"Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes." in what could be seen as an attempt to scare me away from things. I don't know what Jwa was talking about because if you look at my comments on the talk page it was mostly trying to explain ] to people. The personal bias I can only assume was my disagreeing with them on the move request, as that is all I can think of. ] (]) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as mover. I think Jwa's comments speak for themselves. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' if clue is not promptly obtained. That's not an acceptable statement to make against your fellow editors. --] 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is entirely inappropriate and disruptive comportment. ] (]) 15:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' per my comment above ]] 16:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' Jwa's statement is unconscionably biased against editors with psychiatric issues, and such discrimination should not be tolerated. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
], 9 August.
*'''Support''' - ] is something that is, and should be, an immediate indefinite block ''at minimum''. ] is also something that is best responded to with a summary indef. I don't see any reason why Jwa is still unblocked while this ban discussion is ongoing. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cquote| A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been noted as the '''first ] in the history of science;''' }}
*'''Support''' - what ever happened to discussing ]? I'm with Jéské Couriano, why is Jwa still unblocked?--] 00:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly support''' - I'm still getting a weird feeling to the rest of the discussion unrelated to Jwa, but Jwa's interactions feel very clear cut, particularly considering they basically doubled down when they started discussing here at ANI. Feels like obvious grounds for a block and/or CBAN. - ] (]) 00:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Query''' is this proposing an ''indefinite block'' (as the section header says) or a '']'' (as the text says)? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Per ], {{tq|q=y|Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community".}} So wouldn't it be "both"? ] (]) 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], I've updated the wording to specify an indef block. But as ER states above the result would be the same. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Query''' Should we let Jwa know that there is a indef block proposal, like on his talk page, it seems we haven't given him any heads up and I think we probably should. ] (]) 09:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I just left a message on his talk page just giving him a heads up. ] (]) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::You already let them know they were being discussed here at the very start of this conversation. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' unless they unequivocally recant this view, because at the end of the day competence is not decided just by what neurotype one is. I should note that if, as it currently seems, the user has left the project, this is going to be mostly an academic exercise.--] ] 10:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Yeah I did notice they just stop responding to anything, it seems they had a mission and just decided nope out I guess. ] (]) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==== Addition- policy revival and reform ====
The source for that is: Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first '''comprehensive''' meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), ''47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association'' (pp. 1-13). Vienna University. I'm afraid I don't have access to obscure conference papers, but the title's addition of "comprehensive" would cast doubt on whether even that paper makes the claim he used it for.
] is a proposal that failed in 2009 and I have seen too much of this happening which just goes underwhelmingly to Wp:personal attacks. But these aren’t personal only the discrimination against one person is discrimination against the users of Misplaced Pages who were basically attacked. I think its needed as the everyday change of politics in the us. The draft will be remade of course. This is just my test the waters on potential proposals which I would like to make. ]] 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:] would be the place for future policy proposals, but we already have precedent with treating discriminatory speech (aka misgendering and racial slurs) as ]. Users have been blocked on that basis over the last few years, wouldn't hurt to codify it. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The large table near the top of ] has full details of a section I analysed in full, and (since he edited it to add such discussion) various responses by him. Some of his points are false, some of his have a grain of truth but are overstated, and others may be true, but cannot be backed by the sources he claims for it, for instance, he uses primary sources to make claims for the historical importance of themselves. I would encourage other people to check other things he has created for accuracy to sources, and see if the results match.
::Yeah ]] 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If you get the ball rolling at VPP I imagine you'd find a lot of people who would like to improve Misplaced Pages's systematic handling of discriminatory actions. ] (]) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I’ll start to draft a thing for village pump tonight thanks ]] 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] Been working on this dis regard my horrible format its word vomit ]] 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:That is what made my blood boil with these interactions that they weren't just personal attacks but descrimination against a whole class of Misplaced Pages editors. I think policy here would be most welcome. Please ping me when you put up a proposal. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::] Here ]] 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


===Talk page misuse (Jwa05002)===
This user has other problems, for instance, his civility issues and ] make him pretty much impossible to talk to. He has also been revert-warring all attempts to fix the articles he created, by me or others. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|Talk-page access yanked by Moneytrees. ] (]) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
says it all. Talk page access needs to be yanked.


It's sad though that they misread "<disorder> is characterized by <x, y, z, ...>" as "everyone with <disorder> has all of <x, y, z...> to the point that it makes them incompetent to edit". --] ] 04:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* Step one should be a temporary page ban from the article itself, I would say. The ] issues and the revert warring make that plain to me. Does anyone disagree? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
**I'd probably encourage a topic ban, not just the one article. Check his recent history, in which he reverts all attempts to clean up several articles he made. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


:@], please see above comment by Jasper. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*It should also be noted that he tends to make personal attacks on editors who disagree with him, calling us "pseudo-skeptics" and making statements assuming bad faith.] (]) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Oh brother…. ]] 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


==Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407==
I fully and openly invite reviewers of the above missives to review the edits and discussion of the cited articles. There will be found relatively little from these complainants apart from rapid-fire put-downs, and mostly statements of opinion given up in Edit Summary. Conversely, I have continually opened and invited discussion of all and any substantive issues they would raise; this includes discussion of (autonomous and un-discussed edits of) articles on ], ], ], ] and ]. I would also invite reviewers to give close attention to the continued efforts by the above editors, acting in a league (cf. the close times between even just the above edits) to eradicate a source of information from WP that conflicts with the position they characteristically advocate. I have continually sought to discuss the issues, without reference to any individual, and always referring to these complainants in the third person, while being obliged by them to address their opinions, offered to us as self-evident fact, of personal reliability. I should think that such a personally targeted campaign, of which the above is but the latest issue, should be beneath the respect of WP editors. I continue to evince a keen intention to discuss the substantive issues, whenever the above complainants offer a point of fact rather than ''ad hominem'' slight. --Rodgarton 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Noping|Sairamb1407}} has made and many non substantial edits to other articles and have gamed their way into the extended confirmed user group. in order to edit the EC protected ] , consider revoking their ECR until they make 500 legitimate edits. - ] (]) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I note that this editor made their 502nd edit to an extended confirmed protected article. ] (]) 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have revoked their EC permission. ] (]) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Their talk page is full of warnings saying they may be blocked without further warning if they do some vandalism again. That user has only been here for a month... Just FYI. ] (]) 10:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've blocked the user as a sock. The other account has a thread here as well (lower down).--] (]) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


=== User:Rahulbasuzoom not being here and potentially other issues ===
:As an aside, is there a reason why your signature doesn't link to either your userpage or talk page? ] (]) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|status=Sock blocks|1=Socks tossed in the dryer. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Reporting on {{Userlinks|Rahulbasuzoom}}. Almost their entire editing history consists of overlinking. They have been warned for this but still continue with this behavior even today by adding wikilinks to countries, words like "musician", more countries while making one edit per country, rivers where there's already a wikilink in the preceding sentence, the "British Empire" on a series that takes place in contemporary UK? etc.
I think the user is trying to get to extended-confirmed status for Indian topics by gaming the system. Aside from the editing pattern, my suspicion is based on the fact that they made an edit request in that direction (if I accidentally got the wrong diff here, then the next diff should be the right one). When seeing that edit request, I also noticed another one on that talk page by {{Userlinks|Sairamb1407}} (who recently got their extended-confirmed status revoked for gaming the system). I had undone several cases of Rahulbasuzoom's overlinking, so I saw the history of some of the pages they edited and that's why Sairamb1407's username struck me as familiar because those two editors appear to have quite the overlap in editing interests and editing patterns, particularly on ] (where they made their edit requests) and the sub-channels of Republic TV. Examples: Republic Kannada, Republic Bangla, Republic Bharat. I suspect an undisclosed COI for both users, if not a case of meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Some of their edits have been removed for being puff pieces. (Sorry I didn't think of saving a diff for that and it's tricky to get one after I started writing this report, because I'm on mobile.)
This is my first report, sorry if made any mistakes. ] (]) 21:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:Here are examples of unsourced puff pieces added by Rahulbasuzoom for your convenience:. ] (]) 21:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::And here are diffs for Sairamb1407's adding of puff pieces to the same article: . ] (]) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Both accounts are now blocked as socks of each other.--] (]) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Me (DragonofBatley) ==
Here's an example of Rodgarton's NPOV issues: . The only edits not by him have been to add a POV tag, which he reverted. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup>] It's pretty much a straight out POV-push, ''no criticism whatsoever'' appears, though he does use fringe sources to pre-emptively attack ], without stating Gardner's criticisms.


It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save {{Ping|KJP1}} the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
On the talk page, he writes:
:Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
:I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::These are good points.
:::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ]&nbsp;] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ]&nbsp;] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
*:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.


Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
{{cquote|The tagger offers the adjectival slight of "fringe sources," "fringe journal," and so on, as sole justification for her/his slight against the information as "biased." There is no point of discussion offered in such adjectives; we can not reasonably be invited to simply juggle adjectives about the sources of knowledge in the encyclopedic representation of knowledge. }}


That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
In other words, he rejects ] and ], and sees no problem with writing an article entirely from the perspective of the proponents of a fringe theory. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


:At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::He just broke ] at the parapsychology displacement article. Will put up a report in 15 minutes, got things to do at the moment.] (]) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Actually, he's at 5 there, 4 at ], and the displacement one came after I gave him a polite warning about the Joseph Banks Rhine problem. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Ok, well just to dot the T's and cross the I's I'll give him a second warning. But I can't edit the article any more today so if other interested eyes could take a look, perhaps contribute on talk that would be a good thing.] (]) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::NM, he's already been blocked.] (]) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:Just a guess, but Rodgarton's archaic style of prose and inability to comprehend WP policies could indicate that English isn't his primary language. - ] (]) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Alternatively it could simply mean he thinks using a ] will make him sound more informed. I would, however, prefer not to speculate.] (]) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, it seems like he's someone who is not aware of . ] (]) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


::I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on ] quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on ]. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ] feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
outdent) Still wonder why this user will not use four tildes when signing for easy(ier) navigation. --] (]) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@], the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. ] (]/]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. ] (]) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @] or @]. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @] and @]'s earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. ] (]) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the ] and ] concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —] (]) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC).


:As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban.
*I've blocked the user 24 hours for edit warring, but given the above issues, I think a longer duration may be in order. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


:There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
:Should we move this to ], to give us a bit more time to sort through before it's archived? We probably shouldn't do anything until Rodgarton can defend himself. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 23:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


:Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.
:: I'm going to reiterate my proposal for a temporary topical ban; the issues need in the first instance to be kept out of mainspace. If he continues to make problems through talk page interactions then some other sanctions may be necessary, but I would think a topic ban of some sort would gain consensus based on what I've seen of his editing history. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


:For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, <b>this needs to be a final warning</b> in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -] (]) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Guy, if you imposed a topic ban of any sort, there would be no objections from me (or anyone else for that matter). That said, I agree with Juliancolton - a longer block (a week?) would be more useful as a temporary measure to minimise the overall disruption he's caused/causing, and it also works to give the community some time to consider where to go from here. ] (]) 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).


(I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at ].) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, ]. {{U|PamD}} stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular {{U|Crouch, Swale}}. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point ] has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.)
Entertaining the most pervasive and permanent of bans will not surprise me, and I can welcome it; just, please, thereupon, cull all my contributed content; WP is not fit to host it. I have, in any case, long resigned from contributing any substantive new content on WP, and have, without contest, allowed several sections of information I contributed to be culled from the articles in which they were offered. I have elsewhere expressed the evident futility of representing, in WP, academic research on so-called "psi phenomena." WP editors seem to prefer offering a ''Readers' Digest'' type of authority on the research, while ornamenting it with ''ad hominem'' slights, trivialization, marginalization, and so on, as gleaned from the popular reviews by career-debunkers of the field. Fans of the latter pulp too easily abuse - apparently with administrators’ license - the policies and procedures of WP, such as by teaming up to make multiple redirects from, and to routinely cull, anything that might seem to objectively offer a positive interpretation of the research. For the information which is in dispute here and which is cited against me in this campaign is precisely of that quality; I will discuss particular items below, but would here note that it is the culling of information of this type that is the objective of the above complaints; not "goodwill" nor the policy of assumed good faith nor the fair treatment of so-called "fringe" issues behind which these campaigners hide. The reasons given for these culls are rationalisations after the fact, as is obvious from the fact that they are only given when pressed; and that no discussion of the substantive points I raise in the defence of the information are ever addressed; they are simply ignored, or responded to with non-sequiteurs, adjectival and emotive magnification of opinionated claims, ''ad hominem'' slights; in fact, the full repertoire of crooked thinking represented in Sagan's well-known "baloney-detection kit". The latest offering of the latter we see in the above comments that I fail to understand English, or that I write from a thesaurus. While members of the editors' club will be amused by these jokes, they are plainly silly, and demonstrate the poor level at which the issues my contributions raise are discussed. I mistook WP as a site for the representation of academic information in an academically responsible manner. Finding only an infantile level of discussion, and a low, coffee-table criterion of authority, I have, at some points, offered to engage at that level; I no longer see value in even these exchanges with the perpetrators of such silliness.
* Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: '] is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with : he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
* Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content calling it "irrelevant". At ], PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article ], , cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, ], the entire Architecture section was . However, their church articles always contain something like {{tq|The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.}} sourced to ''achurchnearyou.com'', often as a separate "Present day" section. of ] (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: {{tq|All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.}} (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing ] and ], both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.)
* Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as , was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
* Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.
There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note {{U|Liz}} has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that ] instance (at the end of , which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. ] (]) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
A few further points on the specific issues raised in the above complaints.
:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
::I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at ] and ], and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: ].
::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work ===
+ re development of ] in early psi research: It is not a claim I make that is offered for dispute, but a thesis authored by a widely published authority on meta-analysis, H. B&ouml;sch, on the origin of meta-analysis. The complainants are here offering original opinion in place of the researched opinion of a real-life authority. In any case, I some time ago made clear I would not seek to restore the information I offered, so its leading representation in this missive as some kind of evidence of unreliability and unco-operativeness can not be seriously taken. Also, that information was subsequently restored by another editor (doubtlessly again culled by the above campaigners), so its citation as evidence of disruption by myself is just blindly repeated and unexamined opinion.
I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
+ re contributions of psi research to other research disciplines; http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1. This is another of the sections I have allowed to be obliterated, without any effort at its restoration by myself at all. Still, it is cited as evidence of disruptiveness. Here, the culler is one who seems to believe that s/he has discovered some gross unreliability in my representation and citation of two papers, and that this has merited the entire blanking of the information. I have shown how my representation of these articles, and this information, is consistent with (and even more softly stated than) its representation by others; and yet the culler is permitted to freely repeat her/his scurrilous story - based, in any case, only upon her/his personal interpretation of the information in those articles; and this opinion is apparently further blankly followed, without examination, to claim my "disruption" on WP.
::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{U|voorts}} - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. ''Sound of evil laughter.'') --] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:How's this draft proposal: {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace<ins>, converting redirects to articles,</ins> or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
::Having seen on ] yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
::And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. ]] 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. ] (]/]) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - ] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: an infobox? a few words about local authority area? a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. ]] 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to ], never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. ]] 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for the question ]. To clarify, I meant '''any''' expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing ''anywhere'' on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - ] (]) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " ]] 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Okay, looks good. @] what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{U|Cremastra}} - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. ] (]) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Hold on. This goes much further than @] wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? ] (]) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at ]. I've lost patience. ]] 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
:::::::::::::# No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
:::::::::::::# No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
:::::::::::::# No editing in mainspace.
:::::::::::::]] 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.{{pb}}{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):{{pb}}
::'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
::'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
::'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
:{{pb}}The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but '''would personally favour Option B'''. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into ], a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. ] (]) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: I made some changes. ] (]/]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::p.s. ] this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? ] (]) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. ] (]) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I agree. ] (]) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@] and @]: option C amended below. ] (]/]) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? ]] 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. ] (]/]) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s) ===
+ re replication of ]'s findings by other researchers at other institutions: this information is readily found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources, such as ; I have provided references to original papers of just a few of these studies, and to a review article published in the ''J. Communication''. Still, the information is repeatedly culled by the present campaigners as a whole - with specious arguments, if any, for doing so. How can this be supported without question? Evidently it conflicts with the commonly peddled pseudo-skeptical myth that "there has never been an independent replication of any of Rhine's findings," and similar. For that reason alone, it seems, the information is repeatedly culled, and its restoration on WP is blankly drubbed as "disruption".
{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):


:'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
+ re the ] effect: This article has long ago been the subject of an Afd deletion debate; the result of the debate, in which I did not at all participate, was "keep". It seems this article has recently come to the attention of the campaigners responsible for the above-mentioned culls, and they have sought to delete it indirectly, by redirection to the parapsychology article, and blanking of the article itself. Presumably this is because the article on an ostensible psi phenomenon contains references to its discussion in mainstream journals, by mainstream psychologists and statisticians. I would have thought that the independent notability of the article had already been demonstrated by the failed AfD request. When pressed to justify redirection, we are only told by the above campaigners that it "SHOULD" be so; i.e., we are given blank assertion without any basis for debate. Plainly, embedding this information in the parapsychology article would be like demanding that an article on operant learning or any other psychological process should be embedded within the article on psychology. Still, my attempts to simply restore this information are here dubbed as "disruption". Compare this decision and description to the fact of information that I provided within the parapsychology article on objective surveys of academic opinion on parapsychology: that was actually shunted off to an obscure article of its own, presumably because it might be seen as reflecting too positively on the field, and in preference to subjective picks of qualitative opinion by WP editors themselves. There is no consistency in these decisions at culling and redirection apart from the motivation to obliterate anything that smells of academic respectability for psi research.
:'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD.
:'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.


The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
+ other articles or sections of articles that I have authored have also come under the attack of the present campaigners. The article on ] has been repeatedly tagged for one or another reason; as I plainly argue the insupportability of the tag, another is attempted. The same occurs for the article on ]. I should point out that I was responsible for the information within the ] article on the definition of psi by Thouless and Wiesner, and Rhine's adoption of the term; this should also now be culled, let us say, on the basis that it only cites primary sources, or that it has been authored by me, and so merits immediate description as "disruption".


==== Uninvolved editors ====
+ re drubbing of references to the ''J. of Parapsychology'' as "fringe" – a major point of attack offered by the above campaigners; but see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Parapsychology#Citing_the_Journal_of_Parapsychology


==== Involved editors ====
Generally, it is charged that I exist on WP only with the interest of promoting psi research. That would be quite a poor reason to disparage an editor, even if it were true, given that there are no doubt many personal, extra-encyclopedic objectives that WP editors work through. What is true of my objective is that I have sought to supplement what appears to be mostly populist and unrepresentative information with information that is more authoritative and academic, and more objectively limited. I would not be at all familiar with this information if I were not myself a skeptical reader of it; my skepticism has taken me much further into the literature than I had originally envisaged, and were I simply a promoter of psi, or some kind of fanatical "believer," I would not have bothered to read so deeply in the field, and to find out what academics in various disciplines have made of the field. I have not been content to read only the pseudo-skeptical and populist "scriptures" authored by Hansel, Alcock, and so on (pseudo-skeptical, because they denigrate, deny and campaign against scientific enquiry; and reviews of their work have repeatedly found them to be unreliable). Rather than spoon-feed readers of WP with personal samplings from these poor critiques, I thought it would be useful to represent well-credentialed academic information on this research for readers of WP to calmly assess for themselves. So I have cited information not only in the journals of the field, but mainstream ones including ''Nature'', ''Psychological Bulletin'', ''Journal of the Am. Statistical Association'', ''J. of Philosophy''. These of my contributions have included what might be seen as <i>negative</i> estimations of the research; e.g., I originally authored the article on the apparently fraudulent ]; I included Soal's critique of the studies of Warcollier; I added information to the article on ] on fraudulence in the research domain; I included information on the problem of statistical artefact in demonstration of the ]; I included description, as much as seemed academically defensible, of critiques in the article on ]; I added information on the critique of popular claims of ].
:{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also '''support''' option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. '''Oppose''' option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose all''', as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --] (]) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''C''' if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: {{tq| If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree.}} I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) ] (]) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Discussion ====
Naturally, there will be contention as to how this information is represented; that is the nature of reading academic sources; it is all interpretation. The challengers of my interpretations and representations could well have elected to improve the representation of this information in virtue of their own interpretations and their experience with the encyclopaedic form. Instead, they have been motivated to cull it all, and to use my offer of the information as a pretext for a giggling campaign of denigration and slander; to blankly reject all such information.


== Stalking from @Iruka13 ==
I would offer in summary that the editors of WP, as represented in the current missive, maintain an infantile version of a pre-1980s approach to assaying psi research, showing themselves to be simple disciples of long ago peer-discredited and pulp pseudo-skeptical scripture. In chiming in with the phrases of "distortion," and so on, and showing no evidence of independent examination of the more or less serious and trivial opinions raised in this notice, the administrators of WP risk betraying themselves to be similarly limited and abjectly motivated.
*{{userlinks|Iruka13}}
This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user ].


I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as ], @] has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @] for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us.
BTW, although a swansong this might necessarily be, such is not my own intention. In order to help my culling stalkers in their campaign, let me note that, should I be permitted, I will probably and shortly add to the article on ], given there some expressed requirement for further sources, and that I will also seek to contribute on some topics more strictly related to my abiding psychological research interests in signal detection and visual recognition, semantic memory, and the relative consciousness of perception.


As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @] for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
Oh - as to the silly slight about linking via the signature, such is what is offered when one uses the "Your signature" button in the toolbar above the edit textarea. Please offer a more serious effort at denigration if you wish to stoke my fanciful prose. --Rodgarton 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::::At the risk of eliciting your "fanciful prose" I wanted to point out that the request that you use four tildes to produce a linked signature line was not a "slight". Rather it was a politely phrased request that you adhere to the normal courtesies the rest of the Misplaced Pages community generally follow. ] (]) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


:Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka . My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. ] ] 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::(delayed by edit conflict) An article not mentioned so far is ]. There are the same issues of clear agenda-pushing (privileging fringe sources, even pre-prints, over mainstream scientific sources) and incivility. That article is now actively misleading about its topic (the definition of precognition in the first sentence clashes with that in the sources, but Rodgarton claims that his interpretation of one source wins out). Since he's reverted the addition of sourced mainstream material, I can see that trying to fix the damage, while he and I are pretty much the only ones editing the article, is going to be lead into an edit war. I've discussed at great length with him on Talk, but he just throws up great walls of incoherent text and shows little interest in following WP policy (e.g. repeatedly arguing that Misplaced Pages is a source for itself ). It sounds like this is a repeating pattern of behavior across multiple articles in a single topic (and the Parapsychology FAR).
::I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to ] and ], where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because ]. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. <b>]</b> ] 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The above comment by Rodgarton is yet another example of how his descriptions of his behaviour differ wildly from his actual behaviour. He describes himself dispassionately adding encyclopedic facts while his biased opponents use bad faith, non-sequiturs and personal attacks, but as already mentioned in this discussion, it's not hard to verify that it's the other way round. ] (]) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It probably doesn't need saying, but Rodgarton's above claim of a "swansong" isn't credible. He has previously said goodbye to the ] article in his customary style, writing "I will better expend my energies communicating this travesty rather than contributing to this twisted forum. ... Sufficient for Misplaced Pages, but not to the real world, to which I return, pleased to see you and other WP editors picking self-congratulatingly through the debris thereof." but that was back in early August. ] (]) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? ] (]) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I am reproducing the comment from ] here:{{tq2|Do you even know what is ] and what is not? Where in ] is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and ]? And ], ok? — Ирука<sup>13</sup> 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit.
::::The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @] feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding {{tq|the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons}}, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? ] (]/]) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's the process of one after the other, after the other.
::::::If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images.
::::::As an example, was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
::::::If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. ] (]) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add {{ec}})! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hi. Yes. was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
::::::If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream.
::::::Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? ] (]) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to ]. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Misplaced Pages at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go.
::::::::Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat.
::::::::But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over?
::::::::That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue.
::::::::Plus, as pointed out by @], tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. ] (]) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Three* but nonetheless correct. <b>]</b> ] 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e
::::{{U|Voorts}}, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." ] (]) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. ] ] 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think ] agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if ], ], ], and ] have any additional insight. ] (]) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. ] ] 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Their nomination of ] was not correct. The file had a nominally large pixel size, but was very compressed. When I removed their tag for the image to be shrunk, they nominated it for speedy deletion, which makes no sense and is clearly retaliatory. They tagged it as being an entire work uploaded when an excerpt would do, when they knew it was a single compressed frame from a 44 minute film. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't say that their tagging of the file for speedy deletion was totally incorrect and made no sense given the size of the original file that was uploaded; the close to ] and the ] of the {{tlx|Non-free no reduce}} template ] to the file's page and ] of the the {{tlx|Non-free reduce}} template originally added by Iruka13. For reference, {{u|Voorts}}, who's an administrator, did !vote delete in the FFD, but for a different reason; the file ultimately was kept, but it was reduced. You disagreed with the tagging of the file for reduction by Iruka13 but, for some reason, don't seem to have an issue with the closing administrator who did exactly the same thing. -- ] (]) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I forgot about that discussion. I don't think it makes me involved here, but I'm not planning on taking action at this point anyways. If any evidence of a continuing problem had been presented, as I've asked numerous times, I would have blocked, but the allegations of stalking are based on very thin evidence. ] (]/]) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@], you don’t know what I don’t have an issue with. I still think there was no reason for the bot reduction of the file. The relevance of the reduction tagging is in the fact that “this file should be kept and altered” cannot lead to “this file should be deleted” without some major change in opinion, which Iruka never explained—hence my belief that it was just a lashing-out, as I believe is evidenced by the fact that their tag alleging that the file interferes with the market role of the original work and that the still is a complete work from which an excerpt could be taken instead was completely false and never explained—''still'' never explained, actually. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Four of your uploads (the one discussed above, ], ] and ]) were all uploaded at sizes considered big enough to be tagged by a bot for reduction almost within a day of being uploaded. The file discussed here was tagged by a bot ], but you removed the tag ] and added a "Non-free no reduce" template ]; perhaps you thought that resolved things. Iruka13 removed the "Non-free free no reduce" template ], and you re-added it ]. I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again and led to accusations of edit warring. The file was tagged for speedy deletion per ] and ], each of which are reasons related to ]. You then started the discussion about the file, first on its talk page and then at FFD, and Iruka did respond on both pages. None of the above seems to seems (at least to me) to clearly indicate any type of retaliaton against you by Iruka13; rather, it seems like something not too uncommon when it comes to disagreements over non-free files, and it also seems to have been resolved as such. If you can demonstrate that Iruka13 did similar things with respect to your other file uploads or uploads by others, then that might indicate a pattern of some kind; their interaction with you, however, seems to have been civil and seems to have ended with the FFD. Finally, the "Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice" used in the {{tlx|di-fails NFCC}} template is boilerplate text added when a template's {{para|3b}} parameter is set as {{para|3b|yes}}; so, that's the default option when using that template. Personally, I might've just skipped that template and gone to FFD instead, but different strokes for different folks, and, once again, I don't see tagging the file for speedy deletion as being a retaliatory act. Iruka13 can't delete files and any files they tag for speedy deletion are going to be ultimately reviewed by an administrator, and it's possible that the file would've ended up at FFD based on that review. If you've got issues with the bot tagging the file for reduction, the bot operator is probably the best person to express them to. Similarly, if you feel the FFD close was incorrect, you can follow ]. -- ] (]) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::> I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again
::::::And therein lies the point because you shouldn’t have to guess. Iruka could actually engage with editors on a polite, peer-to-peer, basis.
::::::Instead, there is no engagement. It’s tag, move on; tag, move on - dozens of times a day, every day. And should anyone dare engage, they get wikilawyered, or threats such as:
::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
::::::All from a user who, by their own admission, has multiple bans for harassment. Which is, at least from my standing, why I and others feel bullied and harassed. After all it is someone who’ll openly tell you that’s how they behave, knowing full well they get welcomed back to do it again. ] (]) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You cannot nominate a file for deletion because you think your tag is going to be removed. That is not a deletion rationale. I don’t care about establishing a pattern of behavior for this user—I’m just saying that they tagged a file for deletion because they got annoyed that their NFR tag got reverted, and that is a problem. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You can, however, nominate or tag a non-free file for deletion if you feel it fails to meet <s>all</s><u>one</u> of the ten non-free content use criteria. Iruka13 listed two criteria that they felt the non-free use failed; you disagreed with their assessment and the file ended up being discussed at FFD. That's a fairly common occurrence when it comes to disagreements over non-free use, and doesn't necessarily mean anyone was annoyed or trying to retaliate. The fact that the non-free file was kept but also reduced, also doesn't mean they were totally incorrect in their assessment, at least with respect to NFCC#3b. You posted above that I {{tq|don't know what you have an issue with}}, yet you're quick to assume that Iruka13's tagging of the file just had to be done to get back at you. -- ] (]) 03:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)<ins>; <small>post edited. -- 03:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</small></ins>
:@] & @]: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. ] (]/]) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - . This was tagged last week and deleted today.
::Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart.
::Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time.
::Instead, it's drip-drip-drip.
::On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @] ] (]) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The instructions at the top of this page state: {{tq|Be brief and include ''']''' demonstrating the problem}} (emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. ] (]/]) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask.
::::The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag.
::::I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to?
::::Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act?
::::The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. ] (]) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.{{pb}}The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. ] (]/]) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted):
::::::* ]
::::::* ]
:::::: ] (]/]) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::OK @] & @]- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying.
:::::::On 12 Nov, ] was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK.
:::::::On 22 Nov, ] was nominated.
:::::::On 3 Dec ] was nominated.
:::::::On 6 Jan ] was nominated. This is the most dubious of all.
:::::::These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.
:::::::Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message:
:::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
:::::::Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations.
:::::::Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking?
:::::::And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing.
:::::::I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says
:::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
:::::::and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. ] (]) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have
::::::::> 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects
::::::::Link: ]
::::::::That's in *their own words*. ] (]) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.}} There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.{{pb}}Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "]" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.{{pb}}I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. ] (]/]) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that?
:::::::::I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. ] (]) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{outdent|6}} Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, ] was tagged with <nowiki>{{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}</nowiki>. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. ] (]/]) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a ] where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. <b>]</b> ] 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Please provide diffs. ] (]/]) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. <b>]</b> ] 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. ] (]/]) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. <b>]</b> ] 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it.}} Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. ] (]/]) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. <b>]</b> ] 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::"I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."
:::::::::Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*.
:::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:The stuff in this thread is basically ''de rigueur'' for this user: my past experiences with Iruka13 and file deletion have consisted of extremely bizarre wikilawyering, to the point where I felt like it bordered on deliberate trolling. I do not understand why this editor is permitted to waste so much of people's time with obviously vexatious nominations. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think the key element here is if the nominations were "obviously vexatious", I mean the ones that sparked this ANI were all accepted by the deleting admin, and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama. I wonder if there's a tool on toolforge or smth to calculate accepted vs denied CSDs/FfD noms which may paint a better picture, but from a spot check I just did of both CSD and FfD this are mostly either accepted by the deleting admin or the raised issues are resolved. ] <sup>]]</sup> 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::To my understanding this ANI is mainly about a) the volume of CSDs and FfDs and b) the user's laboratory. I don't think anyone is arguing that the nominations were actually meritless or vexatious, and those who said they were "wrong" may want to take that up with the deleting admin or ] because it's not like this user is mass-tagging and it's being declined... most of the time issues are resolved or the admin agrees and speedily deletes/the FfD closes as delete. ] <sup>]]</sup> 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::> and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama
:::You’ve guessed that this is their motivation - and your guess is equally as valid as my assertion that this is stalking.
:::In fact, much of various admins’ attempts at justification throughout this thread is guesswork - all of which has had to occur because Iruka does not engage with other users on a polite peer-to-peer basis. There is no “paper trail” to say “this is what they actually meant”. As has been evidenced and pointed out by multiple editors. ] (]) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If you continue to assert this is stalking with no evidence, I will block you for personal attacks. ] (]/]) 13:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ok, I will simply ask you how do you know tags
:::::> were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama
:::::Have you guessed? Or has Iruka stated this anywhere? ] (]) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::All of the files that he tagged that you uploaded were deleted. There is no rule that prohibits someone from nominating files for deletion spaced apart. At this point, it just feels like you're seeking revenge for that. ] (]/]) 14:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You're guessing my intention the same way you're guessing Iruka's.
:::::::"Revenge" isn't my intention at all. Revenge for what? If the files were legitimately deleted, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to me.
:::::::However, the spacing of the reports felt - and feel - like harassment. (I'm being clear that it *felt* like harassment because I don't want to be banned for what you assert are personal attacks).
:::::::Even with that *feeling*, I would have moved on were it not for the fact that other people were reporting very similar things on the user's Talk page. And then, with a small amount of checking, it seems that Iruka has admitted to harassing other users at various points in the past. And, from what others have said, Iruka has already been banned on multiple occasions, from multiple places, for precisely that. (I don't actually know if this is true).
:::::::So my *feeling* of being harassed was in fact legitimised by others feeling the same - and apparent past behaviour. Hence this.
:::::::On the files being deleted, for that specific one ], it was the first time I'd experienced this sort of tagging. I didn't really know what to do with it.
:::::::The info page said to leave an explanation on the Talk page - which I tried to do.
:::::::I was then told:
:::::::> I can demolish everything you wrote
:::::::along with what I now know is 'wikilawyering'. You can see how I reacted:
:::::::> Who goes onto a page and says "I can demolish everything you wrote" and then cries about bad faith?!
:::::::Because from the info page, I assumed that when an admin came to look at that file to decide upon deletion, they would see that remark and do something with it. I didn't even know this ANI process existed then.
:::::::Except nothing was done. The admin either read Iruka's "demolish" response and decided it was acceptable, or didn't read it.
:::::::And, ever since then, Iruka has continued to target me at regular intervals, leaving me unsure what - if anything - to do.
:::::::You can guess that the targeting is to "prevent looks of batch deleting" - but it's still a guess. Iruka could've engaged civilly, in the same way they could with any other user who has reported a problem.
:::::::In the same way they could be on this thread right now explaining what's actually going on. If they did that, neither you or I would have to guess. ] (]) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


Please forgive the length of this. This discussion has gone a bit sideways, the issue is '''''not''''' whether Iruka13 is “correct” or not in their file tagging and file deletions, the problem is that <u>''their behavior is disturbing and upsetting a number of experienced, good-faith editors''</u>, myself included.
::::::How telling that the only response to my critique of these flawed missives involves raising "an article not mentioned so far" . The campaigners have to shift the debate in order to maintain it, rather than to focus on the substantive issues of debate; as I have already noted as their tactic, and as we are granted by MartinPoulter with another example. Also, even in raising this "not mentioned so far" issue, we are only treated to further ''ad hominem'' slight: the bulk of the complaint concerns how "he describes himself ..." and the "claims that his interpretation wins out," and how "his behaviour differ '''wildly''' from his actual behaviour," and so on, together with bald misinterpretation of my final paragraph. Moreover, I have myself already raised the very article MartinPoulter claims is "not mentioned so far" - perhaps s/he needs to actually read what s/he is instinctively attacking. Then let her/his points be raised in the context of the article in question itself. My above response to the above missives remains to be addressed in any even superficial detail. --Rodgarton 15:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


It is precisely the same conduct that got them blocked on Commons, Russian WP and Ukranian WP. Stalking may not be the right term for the behavior but I do believe there is deliberate harassment conducted by the editor. Misplaced Pages itself defines harassment as {{tq|Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.}} That is clearly the effect their behavior has had with multiple ediors.
{undent} As a friendly suggestion, perhaps if you were to respond concisely and in clear language your words would not be open to misinterpretation. Also when attempting to insert '''' into a quote in order to suggest the presence of a grammatical error it is best not to modify the framing of the quote in order to make the grammar appeared flawed... especially when the source text is available directly above. It doesn't harm MartinPoulter at all but it does tend to affect how others may see you.] (]) 15:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Here is a synopsis of my interactions with this user and why I feel I have been harassed and made to feel upset and frightened to the point that I’ve virtually stopped editing.
:Yet more focus on triviality, and no attention to even one substantive issue. Even the trivia is quickly settled: does not necessarily connote grammatical error; it warns that the quoter has not misquoted what might be passingly interpreted as a grammatical error. If the complainants must get emotive, I pray they will do so on something worth commenting upon; we all get rather sleepy when meriting such trivial and insubstantial responses with a reply. --Rodgarton 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


1. I uploaded ''']'''. After uploading I realized the size was too large for fair-use, and made a note of my error on the file talk page (I was unable to reduce it because I did not have access to Photoshop at the time). BTW, Zuni fetishes are ceremonial objects made by the Zuni tribe of Native Americans that are also sold as small sculptures; they have nothing to do with the sexualized notion of "fetish".
::Considering that one of the major concerns we have brought up with you and then here about you is your tendency to play fast and loose with ] your framing of a quote in a manner designed to make it seem grammatically incorrect, including placing at the point of the artificial error is, in fact, relevant. You routinely attempt to suggest that the opinions of others hold less merit than your own, for instance calling me a pseudo-skeptic because I doubt the veracity of para-psychological research which has suffered from a well documented history of flawed design, credulous investigators and outright frauds.


2. I received message about the file on my user talk. Diff: to which I responded and answered on the file talk page.
::Another example is when you try to suggest that others are "slighting" you when they request you sign your posts with four tildes for ease of linking. Then there are examples such as where you declare your opinion regarding the assumed bad faith of editors who make edits you disagree with.


3. The discussion then resumed at the File talk page about the deletion nomination. Diff: where I explained my rationale for fair use. The editor then responded with: {{tq| judging by the response you didn't look at them; right?}}, which I thought was rather rude to assume I don't read messages (which explains my response on my user talk page).
::And let's not forget about where you called me irrational. And, on the same talk page, where you call an editor you don't name "specious" for putting a POV tag on an article which you admit to be biased to a specific POV ''in the same comment''.


4. They then went on the argue with me in a mocking tone: {{tq|But it is so. wow, your contribution is bigger than mine, it's not for me to tell you about it}} and {{tq|wow_2, who am I telling this to?}}. I told them that their response did not seem very nice. They responded: {{tq|What I was trying to say is that what I'm saying, you already know. You know better than me. / uploading this image boggles my mind.}} I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi warned the editor on their talk page.
::] exists for a reason. I am beginning to suspect you may not understand why these examples (which are not by any means an exhaustive list) could be seen as violating that policy. Regardless of ] repeat attempts to marginalize the opinions of other editors does not strengthen your arguments and only leads to discussions such as this one. ] (]) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


5. After I wrote a more detailed rationale why the file was suitable as fair-use, they refused to answer my own simple question responding instead with: {{tq|I can answer all the questions posed in this message. And I will, if it be necessary. But first, please answer the question - and, for the sake of the experiment, let's assume that all the images in that category are really unsuitable...}} and asked me an "experimental question" whether I could create from scratch a "completely free image", a proposal that would involve spending a large amount of money. Diff: As a volunteer editor, that seemed utterly absurd, and it became clear to me they were just yanking my chain.
:::The above comment demonstrates the failure to distinguish between a characterisation of an argument and an attack on a person. What I have dubbed "irrational" and "specious" etc., as above, characterises, in each case, the quality of argument; it says nothing about the communicator. This is an elementary point of psychological development; the complainant might wish to consult ] on child psychology before s/he again advertises this cognitive failure. Oh, here is the effect of four tildes: Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC). Here is the effect of the "Your signature" button: --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC). Surely this covers enough trivial points, and the complainants can offer by now a substantive point of debate. --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


6. I then noticed they were treating others in similar ways, for example asking editors to buy a glass basketball backboard shield specifically to then smash it with a rock after installing a camera specifically to create a fair use image. Diffs: by {{u|Left guide}}) ]. This clearly seemed they were wikilawyering and arguing for the sake of argument with the intent to annoy and intimidate others. I think it was around this time that {{u|Star Mississippi}} issued a short block.
::At the time I wrote that paragraph of my comment, precognition had not been mentioned. Note, Rodgarton, that my comment appeared after yours because of edit conflict. Your comment about the article suggests that you've improved it. My comment argues that you've damaged it and that you are using a pattern of behaviour to block improvements, similar to your behaviour that has been complained about in other contexts. I hope the admins take more serious action than just the 24hr ban, since I don't think any number or warnings are enough to get you to follow the policies of WP. ] (]) 16:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


7. I then noticed on their user page a link to their “Laboratory”, which creeped me out because the strange “experimental questions” seemed like mind-games. I noticed that not only was there an entry for the Zuni fetishes file, but that some of it was actually written in “invisible ink” using the < ! -- template, and included a a number of my file uploads. Diff from January 2: and . I know that being creepy is not a blockable offense but it scared the daylights me, because I have been Wiki-stalked not only online, but in real life.
:::Suspicion reigns for expression in place of substantive argument! Please note that I have not even attended to the page in question - ] - at least over several weeks. You are free to trash it as you will, and need not fear, as I have made clear, any attempt by me to maintain its responsible and informed representation of information. --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* OK, folks, you have a week off, I have blocked Rodgarton because his energetic pursuit of his POV is causing trouble in mainspace and using up too much of everybody's time in talk space. Please work out what sort of restriction might work, and help him if you can to understand what he needs to change. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


8. I directly asked them to STOP following me around. Instead they created a user sub-page, replacing all the images with 19th century inaccurate illustrations, romanticized representations of the art of Zuni tribe Native Americans by none other than an ethnographer who looted artifacts from the Zuni people. Diff: I again demanded that they STOP and I quit editing. I refuse to be someone's "experimental laboratory" subject, that is disturbingly creepy.
*'''Suggestion''' A relatively long-term topic ban to parapsychology related articles and a strong suggestion he seek tutoring in order to learn how to properly comport himself in talk page discussion would be what I would suggest. ] (]) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
**I can agree, though it'd need to be interpreted broadly, as he has a certain tendency to making articles into a ], e.g. ] and his attempts to make extensive claims for parapsychology there. Let me quote the claim made there:


9. If this is considered “normal” behavior by administrators, well, then after 13 years of editing, I’m out of here. I can not and I will not have a hobby as a volunteer editor in a place where I feel unsafe and harassed, especially from a single-purpose editor with a long history of such behavior – no matter if their tagging or deletions are “correct.”
{{cquote|However, the first meta-analysis '''of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers''', has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates. This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem).}}
] (]) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:I'm not going to respond point by point here, but I don't think the uncivil interactions with you are "normal" behavior. The issue is that Iruka was already blocked for that conduct and I still don't see how the pages Iruka created in his userspace{{snd}}which did not mention you by name and which he did not notify you of{{snd}}are harassment. If Iruka starts being uncivil again or starts harassing people, I'll be the first to indef him. ] (]/]) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::For such a ridiculously specific claim as the text in bold carves out - and I, for one, don't see how that excludes, say, Pearson's study of Typhoid in 1904 - that is a ridiculous amount of ]. It's all the more awful in context: It was the only meta-analysis to have any description whatsoever of what it studied. Here's the whole paragraph with this inclusion:
::The issue seems to be that the behavior Netherzone mentions has been experience by ''multiple other users''. This appears to be a pattern of inappropriate behavior spread out over quite some time. And quite honestly, the "laboratory" really does strike me as creepy behavior intended to needle other editors. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The only two editors I have seen complain about stalking are Netherzone and Peterspeterson. I've asked multiple times for evidence that Iruka's file deletion nominations are largely incorrect, but the only evidence provided thus far have been files that other admins have seen fit to delete and contested FFD discussions. In my view, this complaint seems largely based on vibes and conduct preceding the block. ] (]/]) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* Having been pinged to this, my experience and another thread I saw suggests to me that the user really wants to delete things - not just that they are being gnomish in the area of deletion for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, no, that they actively want to delete stuff and be uncivil to those who do not share this philosophy. In this way, they seem to mass search for anything that could have a valid reason to delete, even if another another option is better or, as in what drew my attention, even if they have to make up some reason why a file meets deletion rationale when it doesn’t. That is another issue: while their deletion noms may be generally correct because they are seeking out files with issues, their tagging of files that only need reduction to be deleted, their tagging of Commons-eligible files, and their bizarre suggestion to purchase an iage license as proof of owenership, strike me as someone who does not understand Misplaced Pages or Commons policy very well and does not care if understanding will get in the way of their tagging g. ULtimately, the poor tags that may not get chance to be corrected, and rejectiong collaboratoon, negate any positive of being the first person to tag some bad files and thus make the user’s contributions in deletion a net negative for WP. I am struggling just to type this on mobile so can’t or provide diffs atm. ] (]) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


I was pinged above by {{u|Drmies}}. I'm not going to read this whole case. I'll briefly say that my main interaction with Iruka13 was at {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Files_for_discussion/2024_November_28#File:Backboard_shattering.jpeg}}. I'm not an FFD regular, but I get the sense that these arguments they used were not mainstream:
{{cquote|The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates. This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). Although meta-analysis is widely used in epidemiology and evidence-based medicine today, a meta-analysis of a medical treatment was not published until 1955. In the 1970s, more sophisticated analytical techniques were introduced in educational research, starting with the work of Gene V. Glass, Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter. The online Oxford English Dictionary lists the first usage of the term in the statistical sense as 1976 by Glass. The statistical theory surrounding meta-analysis was greatly advanced by the work of Nambury S. Raju, Larry V. Hedges, Harris Cooper, Ingram Olkin, John E. Hunter, Jacob Cohen, Thomas C. Chalmers, and Frank L. Schmidt.}}
*Telling the uploader to buy the non-free image themselves and donating it for free.
*Using AI/3D editors as free replacements.
Those did not gain consensus at that FFD. If they are continuing these arguments, and have not gained community support, it would be disruptive and a ] might be reasonable. ] is a guideline, so its hard to gauge what part of their communication can be attributed to English not being their primary language and perhaps lacking the gentleness and politeness that are common in some English-speaking cultures, versus what's an actual harassing, wikilawyering tone. For example, they said: {{tq|And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it.|q=yes}} Later, they claimed: {{tq|I decided here, in case the discussion is closed by , to buy the rights to the photo.|q=yes}} But they should also become aware of others' reactions as well, and take measures to adjust.—] (]) 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:The shattered backboard file was discussed and the consensus was to keep it; so, FFD seems to have worked as it's intended to work. For reference, two others !voted to delete the file in that FFD; so, that means at least two others agreed with Iruka13's assessment. Iruka13 might have a hard time expressing themselves in English if that's not their first language, and some of their arguments might be perplexing: personally, I wouldn't try the "buy the rights and donate the image" line of argument; however, the question here with respect tagging/nominateing files for deletion is (at least in my opinion) not whether Iruka13 is being a nuisance, but rather whether they're wrong so much more than they're right to the point that being that being wrong is causing things to seriously breakdown. The behavioral and poor communication issues and probably need to be addressed, but those things aren't limited to files; if those things are the real problem, then a t-ban/restriction related to files makes little sense to me. I don't see their assessment of files with respect to relevant policies as being perfect, but I also don't see it as being as bad as some posting above are claiming. -- ] (]) 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
::So, yeah, I think were going to need a fairly broad-based topic ban to effectively keep him from causing problems. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
:::'''Agree''' He may cause trouble on pages that are tangentially related to parapsychology, such as pages on statistical tools and pages on the various flavours of psychic.] (]) 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Diffs:
== Block for NPA violation by ] ==
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
: Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078
::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
:Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
:These edits were suggested by the following user:
:*]
:] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Found another bad date in another article:
::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ]
::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Found another bad date in another article:
:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
:::Suggested by user:
:::*]
:::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
:::::-]
:::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
::::::::::::::I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —] (]) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. ] (]) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Unsupervised bot and script use has ]. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix ].... ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We're into ]. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. ] (]) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{pb}}I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to {{u|Whoop whoop pull up}} two weeks ago () about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed ''me'' to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have ''continued'' to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at {{Section link|User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Checking IABot runs}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. ''Both'' should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here ''neither''. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:] is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
:* Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
:** ] says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, '''whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page'''" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
:** BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of ]. Now, ROLE ''does'' have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple '''managers'''", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're ''developed and maintained'' by a team of people (rather than ones that can be ''used'' by multiple people).
:** Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to ''50,000'' pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the ''only'' people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved ''despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible''; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they ''were, in fact, approved'' implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
:** ] seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
:** ] says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ''''", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
:** ] provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
:* Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
:** ] says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved ''despite'' the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
:] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
::"Both should take reponsibility"
::-] at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? ] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
::::Policy is very clear, '''don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus.''' ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. {{pb}}These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. ] (]) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Or, as ] puts it: {{tq|Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.}} ] (]) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot.]] 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::☝🏽{{Pb}}It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.{{pb}}I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.{{pb}}Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.{{pb}}Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.{{pb}}I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against {{u|Abductive}} or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion ''somewhere'' specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping {{u|AManWithNoPlan}}, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots ''and'' checking the results.<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"}} Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. ] (]) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== A bizare editing war on the trotskyist organization list ==
I bring this matter to the attention of my esteemed colleagues so that the party I've blocked has fair audience. I have blocked {{User5|Calton}}, and notified the editor . While calling another editor a is hardly the most egregious of things, I believe that is totally unacceptable. For those of you not familiar with the term "rider of the short bus", it is slang for calling a person mentally retarded. (see ). There are two reasons that I bring this before my peers: 1.) It is always possible that I'm unaware of something that may have a bearing on the situation, and 2.) I will be out of town for some period today, and away from the keyboard for periods of time. As always, an administrator that feels any modifications to my actions would be of benefit to the project, is free to make them at their own discretion. I'll hold no judgment on any admin acting in good faith for the betterment of the 'pedia. I'll also make note of this post on the editor's talk page. Thank you for your time. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
*I think I would have sent ''both of them'' to the corner for awhile. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
| status = No action needed
*No cause for concern - your actions seem fully justified and reasonable. I'll be around for a few hours so I'll keep an eye on it. ] (]) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
**Fair enough. I've unblocked Calton to participate in this discussion, and notified ] of the thread after input from a couple respected editors that may feel I was not being fair to all sides. I believe the block was good, but since another admin. has questioned it on Calton's talk page, and there is a concern here, then I respect the views of the community and have no desire to apply my actions unfairly. I've notified both users of this thread, and hope the community can assist in this matter. Either way, this disruption and these personal attacks must be brought to a halt. Thank you for your support Manning, and thank you for keeping an eye on things while I must be away. I'll check back in as soon as possible. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
**Completely unacceptable comments, block is appropriate. ]] 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* Endorse block per Viridae; but I don't see any reason why he should've been unblocked when transclusion templates exist. In any case, this long term problem needs to be addressed. ] (]) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
** There are ''several'' long-term problems here. The first is, of course, the ease with which Calton reaches heatedness in an argument. One of the participants on ] was {{user|ObserverNY}}, who appears ]. So that's a ''second'' long-term problem. Then there's the subject matter, which is United States politics, the extreme partisanship and battlegrounding which some U.S. editors present, with regard to which, is a ''third'' long-term problem. Then there's the classic . That's a long-term problem ''outside of'' Misplaced Pages, and a long-standing one on Usenet, and a ''fourth'' long-term problem here. Then there's . (Just look at the length of ].) This brings the count of long-term problems, all accumulating and compounding here in this incident, to six. There's far from ''one'' long-term problem to be addressed, here.<p>And that's not even counting the fact that this all came from ], so the Obama-related-articles ArbCom sanctions are probably here in the mix somewhere, too. ] (]) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


| result = Permanent debate among permanent revolutionaries. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 23:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::: My only recollection of dealings with Calton was regarding the NeutralHomer incident from a couple of days ago - at that point, he seemed to clearly misunderstand the nature of mental illness, and felt it to be "fair game". I sadly am not surprised by this action. Unfortunately, a good block. Passion is good - incivility towards invisible disabilities is not. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
}}
*{{pagelinks|List of Trotskyist organizations by country}}


In the last 24 hours some strage editing war seem to have taking place on the following page trying to remove or change it's content:
::::What ARE you talking about? My point -- my ONLY point -- was saying and giving evidence that Neutralhomer was using his Asperger's as an excuse for bad behavior -- despite his claims to the contrary -- and ''someone else's'' suggestion of therapy of a self-disclosed condition he himself claims is a barrier to proper editing behavior is '''not''' a personal attack. Short form: discussing a topic one raises oneself is '''not''' off-limits.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/List_of_Trotskyist_organizations_by_country ] (]) 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hell's bell's, I did not -- and would not -- use the phrase "mental illness" as you did to describe the condition, so I'd say YOUR confusion of Asperger's with "mental illness" is a much more problematic misunderstanding. --] | ] 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:This looks like a content dispute. As ever, it should be addressed by reliable sources (which usually don't include social media sites) and talk page discussion. ] (]) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::These edit wars occur fairly regularly on articles related to these groups as there is a lot of in-fighting and division among members, former members and interested parties especially regarding the lineage of Trotskyist and communist organizations. If you are concerned and it continues, you can open a report at ] and please notify the involved editors when you open complaints like this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Communist organisations taking chunks out of one another? Well, I never — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::To be fair, there is nothing more insulting than being incorrectly called a Trotskyist. ] (]/]) 01:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, this oddity appears to likely be Stalinist splinters trolling each other by adding their rivals to the list of Trotskyist groups. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know if this is really bizarre -- I'd say "Trotskyist organizations getting into petty internecine conflict" is about as predictable as, oh, someone already made this exact same comment. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 06:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::<small>The disputes between ], The Judean People's Popular Front, The Campaign for a Free Galilee, and The Popular Front of Judea? ] (]) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
{{abot}}


== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
::::Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|PEPSI697}}


I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights.
:::::First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. ] ] (]) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) {{Diff2|1264943166|a message}} for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person {{Diff2|1264946563|made a discussion on the talk page}} about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me {{Diff2|1264940021|this}} message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I {{Diff2|1264940623|didn't understand what exactly was the issue}}, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I {{Diff2|1265117356|wish him merry Christmas}}, he wishes me, everything is fine.
::::::You did right. Better to be safe. He can always be re-blocked. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 20:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: {{Diff2|1269540618|1}}, {{diff2|1268720318|2}}, {{diff2|1268521356|3}}, {{Diff2|1268313652|4}}, {{Diff2|1268308516|5}}, {{Diff2|1268121077|6}}, {{Diff2|1268119998|7}}, {{Diff2|1268118180|8}}, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is ]. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor ({{u|Augmented Seventh}}): {{diff2|1269323555|1}}, {{diff2|1269333853|2}}, {{diff2|1269126403|3}}. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.
*Also, any administrator that feels there is evidence or consensus to conclude the matter in one fashion or another is free to act in the manner they feel best for the 'pedia. I'll not pass judgment, or be upset no matter the result. Ched. ] (]) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi {{Diff2|1269543780|replaced}} my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential ] violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to {{Diff2|1269546279|seek clarification}} as to why they did this on their talk page. In {{Diff2|1269548452|their response to me}}, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me {{Diff2|1269576325|this}} message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see {{Diff2|1269577089|this}} edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me {{Diff2|1269580448|this}} message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. {{Diff2|1269580707|This}} edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.
:*Entirely proper block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - {{diff2|1269549064|here}} they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when ] ] for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of ] without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. ]] 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Entirely ludicrous -- and context-free -- block I'd call it, given, for example, that the blocking admin's bogus rationale: '''I'm''' harassing JohnHistory? Who, exactly was that who was posting the thousands of words of ludicrously off-topic baiting that he was explicitly requested, numerous times, to stop clogging my talk page with? (Hint: not me.) He came to my talk page looking for an ] and badgering -- note that his second message was -- what? -- half-an-hour later with demands I answer him immediately? He '''would not stop'''. I made ONE off-hand comment on a User Talk page and I get harassed in return. Why the blocking admin let the harasser get away with it might be due to the admin's of the harasser and his cohorts' points of view.


:I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. ] (]) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not and do not have the slightest interest in arguing politics, ESPECIALLY in a way that is ''utterly irrelevant'' to building an encyclopedia -- hey, wasn't that the point of this project? -- which, since '''I have not and do participate in the writing of articles on said subjects''', might provide a clue to even the most careless reader why JohnHistory's mistaking of my User Talk page for a Free Republic thread was wildly inappropriate, especially when he was told so explicitly and he refused to stop. Cherry-picking words and completely ignoring context are particularly bad rationales for the use of admin tools.
::That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and ], you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. ]] 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. , for example, they say: {{tpq|Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. }}. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. ] (]) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. ({{Diff2|1269544073|1}}, {{Diff2|1269540089|2}}, {{Diff2|1269335610|3}}, {{Diff2|1269126904|4}} {{Diff2|1269098577|5}}, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). ]] 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Seeing {{tq|no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism}} is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ ] (]) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. ] (]) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the ] (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." ] (]) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments {{Diff2|1269580448|demanding}} that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. ]] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
:::::
::::@]: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are ''obvious'' vandalism.
:::::
::::Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, {{tqq|You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents}} - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you ''will'' stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you ''might'' stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. ]] 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{nacc}} {{ping|PEPSI697}} A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page ], ] and ]. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at ] and ] because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.{{pb}}FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on ] that you get {{tq|stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it}} when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been ]. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you {{tq|sometimes don't understand what some words mean}}, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.{{pb}}Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- ] (]) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to ]. ]] 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. ] (]) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Response and apology from PEPSI697 ===
::Uncle G makes several good points -- and Ncmvocalist utterly misses it -- though based on the reports coming through here, the problem with "extreme partisanship" seems almost all one-sided. I would also quibble with his characterization of what I would call my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. As far as I'm concerned, the long-term solution would be to discourage an increase in the number of fools, but that doesn't appear to be a priority around here: about more, see Uncle G's post above.


The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Now, if things are true to form, some of the regulars will scan my text looking for the contrition code words and, finding none, will call for immediate blocking because I "don't get it". I'd suggest they read the actual words and points and compare them to the actual context first. --] | ] 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


:I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the ] or looking at the ]? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.
:::Calton, as you took the better part of the weekend and stepped away from the WP editing, I'm content to consider the matter closed. You've been here long enough to know that personal attacks are not acceptable. I'm not interested in any of the "mommy, he did it first" crap here. To paraphrase your own words: "To recap in words should have no trouble understanding" Suggesting that an editor has mental deficiencies (riding the short bus) is a personal attack. Don't do it again. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There is guidance on how to use the {{tlx|Talk header}} found on its documentation page at ] and also at ]. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in ] and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like ], ], ], ], ] for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at ] or ]. -- ] (]) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with ], but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get ] article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== Topic ban or ban on creating articles outside the AFC process? ==
== Breakdown at ] ==
{{atop|status=Sock it to them|1=PsychoticIncall blocked for sockpuppetry. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|PsychoticIncall}} has been an editor since March of last year. As can be seen on their Talk page and on the page creation log, since May 2024, they have created dozens of articles and unlikely redirects, many of which have been deleted after AfDs. Currently, from their talk page alone, I count 29 articles on non-notable poker players that ended up being deleted, and a further nine that ended up as redirects or a merge to a more appropriate article, with only six of the AfD'ed articles being kept. This is obviously a drain on the time of people who regularly participate at New Pages Patrol and/or AfD.


A to become more familiar with ] and ] and to consider using the ] process for new articles (and to not create unlikely redirects) went unanswered. 23 articles have been deleted/redirected since then, by my count.
{{lt|Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}


While notability is the main concern, sourcing, spelling and grammar on these pages are all less than ideal. An IP about the user's process for article creation (also unanswered), specifically asking about apparently random/non-sequitur section headings (which can be seen still in place at ]) - similar seemingly random headings were also used on the (now-deleted) article ] article (mentioned in the ].) Many of the surviving articles use essentially random terms, with poker players being described (without sources) as , and .
This template is currently indef-protected. The admin protecting it is the primary author and editor. Protection was done on the grounds of ]. The template currently has fewer than 500 transclusions, and doesn't appear to have ever been the subject of vandalism itself. Requests on the talk page have been declined, met with a rather long response from the protecting admin - as a result, a request on RFPP has been going stale, with the outside admin stating that the page should not be protected, but declining to action it. There has been no sign of an edit war, and there is no indication that one is about to begin.


I would like to propose ''either'' a topic ban from poker and poker-related articles for PsychoticIncall; ''or'', at minimum, a ban on creating articles outside of the ] process. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Some further outside input would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


:You stated that 23 articles have been deleted since September 2024. But are these 23 articles newly created since September 2024, or prior to that? If they have reduced their article creations over time as their articles get deleted (of which 6 survived), I don't think any ban is appropriate, and uninvolved editors should weigh in on a guidance in creating poker player articles in the future. ] (]) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I also came across this at RFPP, though I haven't commented there. ] has taken no direct action but has brought the issue on the template talk page; however, he seems to know that ] isn't around on the weekends. He has stated at the template talk page that he will not unprotect because it would be wheel warring; I disagree. ]'s actions are of doubtful necessity and are an abuse of administrative tools where he is the creator of the template and one of the only editors. He also appears to have added the protection after ] made a bold move; indicating he's using the protection <s>indicating he's using the protection</s> to win a dispute over titling the template. It is perfectly appropriate for an uninvolved admin to take action here and unprotect, wheel warring is when an admin uses his tools to redo an action reverted by another admin. As the admin is apparently not around to discuss, I am unprotecting. However, this issue remains open and I think we need to look harder at this admin's use of his tools generally.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::A better question to ask is "Is their ratio of good work to bad any better?" I'd say no, it's not significantly better. I'd support a topic ban or article-space ban; their attachment to the topic seems to keep them immune from listening to requests to change their behavior. - ] ] 22:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I think semi-protection should be preserved, as this templates is still used on a few hundred pages. ]_] 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I looked at their user creation logs, and they markedly reduced their article creations after Bastun's warning on 17:55, 2 September 2024, seeing they only created 4 articles which admittedly 3 were deleted. I think anyone creating 4 articles and having 3 articles deleted is not ground for ANI. They made a lot of redirects that were deleted though, I think a warning against careless redirect creations is appropriate, because it appears they listen to warnings. ] (]) 07:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I think that discussion needs to continue on the template's talk page as to whether ] applies to this template. I have no opinion on the matter. I unprotected because there was a request at RFPP, the protection appears to have been an abuse of tools by an involved admin and I posted here about it because there was the suggestion that unprotection would be wheel warring. Much of the current discussion there was emotional surrounding the abuse of tools and your point would probably be a good place to make a fresh start with that discussion. This discussion should be about the abuse of tools, this is not a place to discuss the overall merits of protection.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::A quick check of the creation logs is showing me that since 30 September, they have created 32 redirects, 5 of which remain undeleted, and 9 articles, 2 of which remain undeleted. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The circumstances under which the template was protected are unusual. There does not seem to have been what many might consider sufficient cause for full protection to be placed, so I can see how removing it, as even the admin who first declined to do so favored. Semi-protection is another matter independent of the circumstances, and could easily be requested at ]. I'm not sure I would necessarily oppose such semi-protection, but that is another matter. ] (]) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Ezhiki typically abuses his tools. I normally love the guy, he is usually very level-headed, I am concerned in this instance though that he has purposefully locked the template from even me helping constructively edit it because of a perceived threat of deletion or edits removing things which he disgarees with like Farmborough did and that he has resorted to trolling the TFDs to prove a point even when he knows little about them like the Bangladesh template. If you check the actual history of the template to completely lock it fully is clearly inappropriate and seems to have been done out of fear rather than anything else. A semi-lock maybe but I don't think it will get much if any vandalism, the previous Russia city template never did. If at a later date it gets vandalism from ips then semi-lock it. His actions of late over templates and "settlements" have admittedly teed me off a little. ]</span> 13:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:I am very concerned that on 9 September he made two edits <u>(to the template under discussion)</u>, one to reverse Pigsonthewing's move of the same day, the other to fully protect the template. This is clear use of tools to win a dispute and is most inappropriate. If it weren't for that, I probably would have let things lie the way Tedder had left them - i.e. wait until Ezhiki got back; but this is very disconcerting.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
If you really want to see something quite inappropriate check out his excessive posts at the TFDs providing the same invalid argument each time to prove a point. He has voted to keep a template on Bangladesh I nominated too which is actually at present providing seriously false location information and is in interfering with the effort I made to make 64 district locator maps which they could not provide to clean them all up and correct them. He has obviously not actually stopped to examine the pros and cons of the templates and treat each one indiviually but has hounded all of them to prove his point over naming convention because of an earlier conflict on the Russian template with Pigs on the wing, check it out. That in my view is unacceptable behavior from an admin. He has never edited any articles on Bangladesh or the Solomon Islands and normally would not have done this.]</span> 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Please just block them indef, they not only have massive competence issues but they are a sock of a blocked editor, . I can provide more evidence or start an SPI if necessary. ] (]) 09:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I remember now why I love taking wiki-weekends so much&mdash;it is always so nice to return to the sweet smell of <s>napalm</s> admin abuse accusations on Monday morning! So, should I sign my sentence somewhere now? :)
:Oh, wow - good catch! Looking at ], it looks indistinguishable from ]. Note also the use of the invented (?) term, "quarter professional", in article titles on that talk page, a term PsychoticIncall also uses. Quack. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think this is a convincing case for SPI, please start it. ] (]) 12:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've started it. - ] ] 12:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::However, there is a big gap in time since EBBB was blocked until now, so we may not get good CU results. But I'm going to block on behavior for now. - ] ] 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Suspicious activity of several accounts ==
Anyway, joyful bantering aside, in case anyone is still interested in my take on the situation, ]:
{{atop|result=OP has withdrawn complaint. They know the way to ] and have been encouraged to make use of it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
#For the past couple of years, the infobox needs of articles on Russian cities/towns were taken care of by {{tl|Infobox Russian city}}
I'm not going to take this to sockpuppet investigation because I don't have enough evidence of sockpuppetry. So I'm going to report it here just in case, someone could investigate this situation. {{ping|Kaloypangilinan}} restored {{ping|CindyMalena}}'s edits in these two articles.. I reverted CindyMalena's edits because they were unreferenced. Both these editors didn't add a reference to the same names they've added in the two articles and they didn't use the edit summary. These are the unreferenced edits of CindyMalena. The changes of CindyMalena/Kaloypangilinan aren't 100% identical, but they've added names that the references of the article don't mention. Kaloypangilinan has been warned 4 times (last year) in their talkpage for unreferenced content. Kaloypangilinan also don't respond to talk page messages, they've been reported here in ANI before, and still continue to make unreferenced edits. Since I became suspicious if these two editors are connected, I discovered CindyMalena created this page for "Kaloy Tingcungco", an actor in the Philippines according to Google. Then I googled "Kaloy Pangilinan" in google and pictures of the Philippine actor "Kaloy Tingcungco" came out. Whats weirder is CindyMalena edited the Wikipage of this blocked account ]. I don't know how can a newly created account edit a Wikipage of a blocked editor, if they aren't connected. ] (]) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
#The template worked OK for its purpose, yet had a score of annoying minor problems and inconsistencies. Also, it was only suitable for cities/towns, and not for other types of populated places in Russia.
#After having collected numerous feedback about that template, I designed and implemented {{tl|Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} on August 19 & 20, 2009.
#After polishing out the most obvious bugs, I ''semi''-protected the template on August 20.
#While it was my belief even on August 20 that the template qualifies under ], I did not choose to fully protect it at the time because there was a possibility someone other than me would find undetected bugs and fix them.
#For the next two and a half weeks, I was observing the template for problems.
#Those few minor problems which I've noticed, I on September 8. Since in two and a half weeks no one else complained about anything, my intent was to fully protect the template (under WP:HRT) soon after.
#On September 9, the template was to a new title ({{tld|Infobox Russian settlement}}) by ] (Andy).
#I do not question it was a good-faith move, but it also was uninformed and negligent.
##The uninformed portion was the fact that the term "settlement" in context of Russia is both a ''synonym'' of the term "inhabited locality" and a term referring to a type of an "inhabited locality" (as in "Russian inhabited localities include cities, towns, villages, settlements, urban-type settlements, etc..."). In articles about Russia, for reasons of clarity and unambiguity, we always use the term "settlement" in its latter sense. Using a precise term in its generic sense, if only in a template title, can be confusing to editors and ultimately leads to increased maintenance overhead within ] (of which I am a member). Having seen how carelessly this template had been applied in articles in the past, I do believe that the clarity of the template's title is of utmost importance.
##The negligent portion was due to the fact that the move created several double-redirects, which remained unfixed for several hours. As a result, a number of high-profile (for WP:RUSSIA) articles displayed a double-redirect notice instead of the actual infobox.
#I discovered the move upon logging in on September 9 and moved it back for the reasons explained in the .
#Since it was my intent to fully protect the template that morning anyway, .
#Was that action probably not a good judgement? In the hindsight, it was. Note, however, that the protection was imposed due to my interpretation of the WP:HRT, as well as to the fact that the previous negligent move clearly demonstrated the need for such protection (good-faith actions can be as harmful as the bad-faith ones). The protection action had nothing to do with the "conflict" (which, as of the time of protection, had not even started to develop). I truly and honestly find the accusations of "admin abuse" far-fetching, unsubstantiated, and not in spirit of assuming good faith (especially considering the fact that they've been made even before the accusing side had a chance to hear my reasoning and explanations). I would not object to allegations of "poor judgment", but I find allegations of "admin abuse" so early in the process despicable. At least take some time to hear the whole story! Is one weekend too long of a time to wait for me to return?
#Moving on. A few minutes after the protection had been imposed, Andy on the template's talk page.
#I immediately after having seen the comment, explaining the terminology peculiarities.
#After a , I wrote up an further explaining the reasons.
#After that, the thread died (for '''six days'''!). Naturally, I assumed the issue is settled. The template remained fully protected.
#On September 15, Andy posted three further comments, stated that he is "disinclined" to read my previous response as it is too "lengthy". I have not addressed this comment as I have not noticed it; something which I later apologized for.
#On September 17, ] as to the purpose of having the template locked.
#I that the protection is for WP:HRT reasons, and that if he does not agree with my interpretation of WP:HRT or its applicability in this case, he is welcome to seek opinion of an administrator of his choice. To that, I received no response from Himalayan, nor was there an indication that Himalayan solicited any other admin for an opinion, so (here we go again) I assumed the matter settled (at least with him).
#I did, however, receive a from Andy, in which he also alerted me to the fact that I have overlooked one of his previous requests (the one in which he states his "disinclination" to read my responses, for they are too "lengthy").
#In , I addressed both issues:
##On protection, I advised Andy to take the same course of action I recommended Himalayan&mdash;he is welcome to solicit an opinion of another administrator of his choice and, if that opinion happens to differ from mine and the template does not qualify for protection under WP:HRT, I would comply nevertheless. (For the matter of record, I fully understand how HRT applicability in this case can seem borderline and subject to an individual interpretation, although I firmly stand by my own assessment).
##On the matter of "disinclination" to read my responses, I advised Andy that he cannot expect a productive discussion to take place if he refuses his opponent the right to be heard on the basis of a ].
#As a result, Andy listed the template for unprotection, which ultimately lead to this AN/I thread.


:You really should take this to ]. For one thing, if you're right, it's the appropriate venue. For another, if you're wrong but have put together a case with behavioural evidence such as the editing of a blocked editor's user boxes you're less likely to get accused of casting aspersions. My sincere recommendation is to withdraw this incident report and then create a SPI case. ] (]) 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
To summarize: I admit that it was not a very sound judgment decision to protect the template after having moved it back (although I emphasize once again that no conflict took place as of the time of protection) and that I should have probably contacted a different admin to handle that. I ''do not'' admit any "admin abuse" or assumption of me acting in bad faith ''at any point'' of this conflict. The above list, hopefully, provides a clearer picture. If anything seems unclear or inaccurate, I'll be happy to take questions.
::Per {{ping|Simonm223}}'s suggestion, I'm going to withdraw this incident report. As for a SPI case, both CindyMalena and Kaloypangilinan have less than 200 edits and I simply don't have enough amount of evidence to report them in Spi. ] (]) 19:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::], why do you think the editors have to have made 200 edits before they can be reported? Some editors who have been blocked as sockpuppets have made 0 edits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The last editor, I've reported relating to sockpuppetry before this was ] had 71 edits. Looking at the contributions page of Kaloypangilinan and CindyMalena, I don't have much evidence aside from what I already posted here. I did notice the similar behavior of no communication in their respective talkpage and not using the edit summary. Like I said, I don't know how can a new account can locate this page ], since the user page of ] is empty and their talkpage don't have any posts that would direct new users to ]. I would need more evidence if I ever report something to SPI. I've only submitted reports in SPI, twice if I'm remembering correctly. ] (]) 20:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Hotwiki}}, if you have enough evidence then you should report suspected sockpuppetry at ]. If you don't have enough evidence then you shouldn't report it anywhere. ] (]) 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did make a mistake coming here about this issue, thats why I already withdrew this report. Also, I've only made two sockpuppet reports (if I remember correctly) which both were stressful for me. With Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena, I just didn't want to go through the same process with fewer evidences, which is why I came here to ANI. ] (]) 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It sounds like @] is just looking for assurance that it's OK to take this to SPI with this evidence?
:::::::Hotwiki, I'm not an admin or a checkuser, nor an expert on SPI, but you can always try submitting a report. It's easier if you use Twinkle. There isn't any rush to submit a report, you can take your time. ] (]) 20:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you {{ping|Knitsey}}. For now, I don't feel confident filing a SPI report against CindyMalena/Kaloy Pangilinan. The last SPI case I made was stressful because the sockpuppeteer had several accounts. I ended up doing 2 reports which were both confirmed right. Last month, I reported a sockpuppeteer in ANI because they admitted it through their talkpage and it was connected to those two times I made a report in Spi. But this is a different case with Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena. If I get more evidences in the future, I would go back to it and send it to SPI. Thank you for the suggestions and I'm sorry if I brought up my sockpuppet suspicious here, since this isn't the right place for that. ] (]) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*Just a note that an SPI case was filed and both editors were found to be sockpuppets of ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== User Douglas1998A creating incorrect categories. ==
As for the template, as indicated above in my responses to two other users, I had agreed to abide by an assessment of another admin, and since that assessment is presently "unprotect", that's what I am going to abide by. I do, however, still believe it qualifies for protection under HRT (it is relatively high use and affects the area not many other admins watch over, so vandalism has greater chances of going undetected). I also reserve the right to fully protect this template again if a) it starts to attract vandals; b) when it's usage level increases by an order of magnitude (~3,000 articles).—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 15:00, September&nbsp;21, 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=The pblock will continue until communication improves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Two weeks ago I opened ] on {{u|Douglas1998A}} creating and adding incorrect categories to pages, most notably on ] and ]. In November 2024, they created ] and added it to ] and ], even though they are not American telenovelas. The category was deleted but in December 2024, they created ] and added the previously mentioned pages to this new category when they are only Brazilian telenovelas and not American ones. . The category was deleted and the user created it once more today and added it to ] and ] again.


The first time this issue was brought up to the noticeboard it was never resolved as the user ] after being notified of the discussion, and they have never bothered to reply back to messages on ]. How can this be resolved if the user continuously fails to engage in ]?] (]) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Whether you disagree with Andy's moves with the Russian template or not you retaliated by hounding all of his (and one of my) nominations with the same copied and pasted message to prove a point about template naming conventions. If you had actually stopped and considered the content and function of some of the templates particuarly the Bangaldesh one which at present is far from accurate then you might see that some of them are actually valid nominations and not just part of a vendetta of Andys to add settlement to everywhere. If yo had assumed good faith in the first place rather than locking the template after a disagremeent and then angrily raiding his other TFDs nobody would have said anything and you most certainly would not have received a response from me.]</span> 16:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


:{{ping|Sammi Brie}} Your take? ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:90% of Ezhiki's response is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, five minutes after reverting a disputed move, he protected the template. I requested he reverse that, explaining that it was an abuse of his admin powers. When he apparently did not see my request; I drew his attention to it. Once he stated that he would not unprotect it, I requested unprotection using the correct channel. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Pretty obviously a communication is required problem and also wrong. The telenovelas don't have any American production outside of one being dubbed into Spanish by a U.S. broadcaster, which does not count. ] (she/her •&nbsp;] • ]) 19:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Has Douglas1998A done any positive work in Category space? Because if it's just warring over these two categories, they could be partially blocked from Categories unless their other work creating categories is fine. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Per Douglas1998A's talk page, two other categories created by them were nominated and deleted. These were: ] and ]. So I believe there it's more than just the Brazilian/Portuguese categories.
:::I have also mentioned to Douglas1998A that pages should be placed in the most specific categories to which they belong. For example on ] they persistently added ], when the page is already in the subcategory ].
:::Douglas1998A's lack of communication and reverting edits show they are unwilling to discuss and resolve the issues with their edits. ] (]) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:A day has passed since the user was notified of this discussion. They have continued editing and have not bothered to reply. The user is ignoring the issue and it will once again be unresolved. ] (]) 18:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{User-blocked}} from article space per ]. Once the user begins commmunicating and adequately addresses these concerns, any admin is free to lift the block. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Two editors and WineGUI ==
I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion here. It is not addressing the real problem or helping what needs to be done here. Ezhiki is not going to be blocked and niether is he going to be stripped of his tools for locking a single template and neither do I want him to be so I think we should end this ANI discussion and discuss more calmly how we address Ezhiki's concerns about naming convention without conflict or misunderstanding and come to a consensus elsewhere.]</span> 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Danger89 indef'd per ]. Justcomic1 indef'd as an ] sock. ] (]/]) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|Danger89}}
*{{userlinks|Justcosmic1}}
*{{articlelinks|WineGUI}}
Two editors, {{Noping|Danger89}} and {{noping|Justcosmic1}}, have been constantly pushing for what seems like a restoration of the ] article, which was changed to a redirect per an AFD I started, complete with a ]. Timeline of events:
* I start the ], citing a genuine reason in the AFD that the article shows no importance or notability whatsoever. I did this after I started a PROD, which was reverted by Danger89 (they're a developer of WineGUI, I'll explain later).
* In AFD, all editors unilaterally vote yes. Danger89 replies to almost all of them, giving a source of their GitLab page, and saying it's not primary. When asked why they are writing an article about their own product (aka ] violations), they just say something along the lines of, "I don't like it"
* After the AFD is closed, I take a look at Danger89's user page. There, they state that they '''are''' indeed the developer of the app, so I leave them a notice about COI with a stern warning that they may be blocked if they continue to ignore COI rules. In response to this, an IP which can confidently be assumed to be Danger89 logged out just writes {{tq|block me}}, showing a disruptive attitude.
* Danger89 cites a userbase number on the WineGUI talk page to which I reply that notability does not depend on things like that. Justcosmic1, within 3 edits, twists the PROD policy by saying that I knew there would be opposition (no I didn't), and saying that I have a beef with Danger89, failing to cite any evidence.
* Danger89 blanks my userpage, to which I give a generic level 4 warning. After this, Justcosmic1 joins the conversation and writes a reply that looks like it was from Danger89. This appears to be their fourth edit, which looks extremely suspicious and like a sock (not making any allegations, but just saying). Their other 3 edits were on the WineGUI talk page.


Also, Danger89 continually edited the WineGUI page while it was still up, further contravening COI rules. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:1.15em"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 01:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== User:The Squicks ==
{{abot}}


== Al-Naghawi page ==
Can you all tone down his and possible misuse of multiple dynamic IPs (173.*.*.*) and maybe others? I think, now, I recognize it when I see it. Also, he's been called on his language before. -] (]) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
*To accuse someone of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. You should provide some diffs, and evidence to support your claims. ] ]/] 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
| result = Not an ANI issue. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*<small> Also, ] has been notified of this thread. ] ]/] 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
}}
**I have no capability to make such an accusation, only to see a pattern, one that could also be produced by the Admin ], say, who seems to use 173.*.*.* IPs following Squicks and reverting in his favor. I don't have the technical tools to make such investigations, but I can request those who do look into it. Squicks has accused me of being "sexually obsessed", as I recall, for trying to document and write about the original, rude, British meaning of "Yankee doodle." Such accusation, in the context of an edit dispute among people who are not friends, I consider, and most people I know, would consider libelous. That he sees me saying so as threat of a lawsuit is his own overreaction. Social norms reflected in law, without necessarily resorting to it, are often good guides. -] (]) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Al-Naghawi}}
***Here's a good guide for you: When coming to WP:AN/I complaining that editors are logging in and out to edit war, try ''not doing it yourself at the very same time''. It's pretty clear, from even a quick perusal of the edit histories concerned, that you are
currently there is an edit issue going on with the Al-Naghawi page as information is being changed back and forth alongside the page's title name so I wish for admin intervention to resolve issues as sources are not being checked which are cited as they are irrelevant to the page. ] (]) 08:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
****{{user|74.162.148.126}} in the edit war at ],
:] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
****{{user|74.162.156.72}} and {{user|74.162.129.139}} in the edit war at ] and on ],
{{abot}}
****{{user|74.162.156.72}} in the edit war over an external link to a Youtube video at ],
****{{user|74.242.231.34}} and {{user|74.162.156.72}} in the edit war at ],
****all three of {{user|74.162.147.56}}, {{user|74.162.147.36}}, and {{user|74.242.231.34}} in the Obama-related edit war at ],
****and a whole load of others besides.
***And the edit wars that you are participating in on the user talk pages of many of these accounts, such as on ] and ] for examples, are descending into the absurd. ] (]) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
***It is my understanding that using IPs is no violation, except when used to avoid policies. I have no proof for whether the apparent pattern of IPs supporting Squicks is that, but you may, if you care to look into it. Thanks for calling him about his language, again, if you did. ] (]) 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==
There is yet more that of Squicks that needs correcting:
{{atop|status=Called on the carpet|1=Blocked with TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Ramsha Carpets}}
Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warning. —]] 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've pulled TPA as well, since they can't help spamming, apparently. -- ] (]) 09:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly replacing a blue link with a red one. Calling an official DHHS document (an "Order" in fact, directing policy change) merely "personal opinions of A government offical" (as if not reviewed and authorized as official).
::Thank you. —]] 09:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pre-existing_condition&action=history
{{abot}}


== Magian Priest's Descendant - egregious personal attacks ==
:Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly deleting a hidden note to other editors on a key point.
{{atop
:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Teabagging&action=history
| result = Escalated to indeffed. Nothing further. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


{{userlinks|Magian Priest's Descendant}}
:Repeated failure to abide by consensus. Inappropriate vulgarity.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Health_insurance_cooperative&action=history


-] (]) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


::In all of those circumstances, '''you''' made edits that blatantly distorted the sources and then '''you''' accused any opposition to that distortion as "vandalism". You then started a persistent edit war to put your distortions into the articles, refusing to talk anything out. This is a particular pattern of you, given that this is exactly what you did at ']' and ']' and ']' and everywhere else you have edited.


::Everything that you have '''me''' of- and I mean everything that have written above- was done by '''you''' first. I must admit that it is a shrewd move, attributing your actions to someone else to cover up your tracks, but it's not going to fly here. Other editors have noticed. ] (]) 05:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Also violated ] at ] , refusing to use the talk page (whose comments shows that they either have ] issues or are trolling). --] (]) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Mbii that a website blog statement labeled ''The Satirical Post'' (no, I'm not making this up, he really claims this) is a source for the statement "''Teabagger''' is now widely used to mean a participant in the ], a series of protests against the expansion of government spending in the USA in 2009 by opponents of the protesters and by protesters themselves."
:While not strictly a 3RR violation (note the last diff is a different edit) but absolutely edit-warring, and when combined with the personal attacks in the edit-summaries, have blocked them for 24 hours. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks The Bushranger! ] (]) 11:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Non-neutral paid editor ==
::He also took out an ']' tag . His argument was "The dispute is resolved by our refusal to waste time with you", which is hilarious coming from someone expressing such touchy skin and feelings of hurt on this page.


@] is heavily editing ] in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Of course, all of his comments in the healthcare related articles (e.g. "Squicks needs to be banned", "reverting a determined vandal", etc) came when he was using multiple sock-puppets to get around editor consensus against his additions (which is completely against WP policy but- as you can see- he sees as a personal matter of pride having socks). This makes his thin skin now to be even more hilarious.


:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
::Don't forget, this is the editor who created the page for ']'. If you have never heard of it, Mbii made these claims=
:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
:* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
:* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
:An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably ]. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. ] (]) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them.
::#By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as ''"has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world"'' and ''"The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality"'' + ''"The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"?'' Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate ] and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a '''very''' strong statement cited to..., seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
::#Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally ], and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. '''If''' that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, '''then''' it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
::#Do you '''really''' think phrases like ''"China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments."'' are consistent with ]? '''Really?''' ''Maybe'' cutting '''all''' of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
::# That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently . It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
::In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably ]" seems downright ]. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns ? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a ] and ] manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that ] is supposed to prevent. --] (]) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like ], you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't ''bad'' by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply ''not good enough'' or ''relevant enough'' for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
::::Given ''this'' context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not ''obligated'' to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. ] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @]'s paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @] provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
:My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Adding'': Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 ] (]) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*An editor with a declared COI should ''never'' be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the {{tq|strongly discouraged}} wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}?
*:Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that '''if''' is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering '''is not even seen anywhere on their front page''' - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as . The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)}} - that would be wrong. See ]; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we ''want'' editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read ], and especially ] Having a ''perspective'' on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. ] editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then ] needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
::::It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah ] editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that ''every'' edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it ''strictly'' barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --] (]) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's ''not'' the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change {{tq|strongly discouraged}} to {{tq|prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)}}. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.
::::::Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be ''manually'' saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that {{tq|editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests}} - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I ''need'' to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to ''this'' case, rather than a general statement.
::::::Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


*{{tqq|So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this}} Uh, guys? Does ] mean nothing to you? - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::''Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantitative concentration level. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass."''
*:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ]&thinsp;] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the ''principles of privacy'' still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. ]&thinsp;] 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Could we get an edit to ] for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ] back to Andrewjlockley ===
::] (]) 06:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. '''However''', that does not change the fact she has been one of a '''literal handful''' of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in ] over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
:With that in mind, I would like to say I have '''great''' difficulty assuming ] here - not when the OP editor {{redacted|]}}, which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective '''and''' when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
:I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
:P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
:::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though.
::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ]&thinsp;] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
:::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
:::
:::
:::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result.
::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway.
::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
:::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among .
:::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the .
:::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ]&thinsp;] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


* Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*I was new to WP, then, and didn't know there was no place for satire, but Squicks is an old, honored, and sometimes insightful editor, which makes all this a puzzle, explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor. -] (]) 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*:This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. ]&thinsp;] 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that {{user|EMsmile}} has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is '''also not on'''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::... gonna ask in talk page of ] if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point ] (]) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::], I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|Liz}} the diff of them ''placing'' it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named ], then it constitutes ] (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at ] think it would be easier to avoid.
*:::::opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
*:::::alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? ] (]) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


*I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on ] of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant ] and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't ] people or contacting their employers. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Icing on the cake is his libel threat. I enthusitically support going to court with him and having him explain his personal theory that the term 'Yankee Doodle' = 'Americans masturbate too much" to a typical Texas Jury (and how, by daring to question him on that, I have committed libel). ] (]) 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*:@] I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? ===
::*Don't know where he got the quote, ridiculous. The IP thing is old and I've addressed above. The Satirical Post points to something I've seen and heard, first hand, teabaggers publicly calling themselves Teabaggers at rallies; it just needs more references. -] (]) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit wikipedia seems analagous to . See also ]. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no ]. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. ] (]) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? ] (]) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::So you've seen something firsthand. And you claim that that is enough to put that material in an article?
::::I'm also wondering exactly where you got the idea for 'Bushcronium' from. What reliable sources was that from? ] (]) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC) ::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ].
::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile ===
::::Regardless, you have to agree that for you to call me a vandal over and over again for what was you going against other editorial consensuses, and then for you to make a 180 and claim hurt feelings after your unsourced additions to various article are reverted is funny. Isn't it? ] (]) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. {{Noping|EMsmile}} is a paid editor who violated ] - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight ''are highly disruptive'' - and that's notwithstanding the ''paid editing.'' Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*Recall I moved this disputed key point of mine into a hidden note to other editors, to seek sources, which Squicks deleted anyway. He didn't want even them to see it? -] (]) 07:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


:'''Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for ].'''- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.
:::::Apparently, things haven't changed for you. You're still doing exactly the same things that you did when you first started-- adding content not represented by reliable sources, using sock-puppets, edit-warring, calling other people names, and so on.
:the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::From ] {{tq|WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages}} - this seems not to be the case here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
:::want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi applies] (]) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by ] - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. {{U|Bluethricecreamman}} has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether {{U|EMsmile}} was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see ] apologize for the ] that occurred. ] (]) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. ] (]) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Strong oppose''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in ''simple ignorance'' (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not ]).
::That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, '''it fails a DUCK test''', and ''looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor''. What I see is a properly disclosed ] editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. ''These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors.'' Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't ] going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :]&thinsp;] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: <small>((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above)</small> 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, ''otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month'', 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that ''AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI.'' They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including ''very questionable'' off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where ] was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT ''recent'' contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a '''grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI''' (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month ''for over 11 years'')... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either ] or ]. ]&thinsp;] 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Maybe everyone gets ]s at this point and we move on? ] (]) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
:::::However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for '''potential civil-POV'' which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like might come off is overly whitewashing, but {{tq|China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.}} but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does <u>call into need for a closer look</u>, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. ]&thinsp;] 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
::mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. ] (]) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Strong support'''. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, ] applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that ] only ''strongly discourages'' paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --] (]) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose and IMO unthinkable''' They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::When I read that you wrote "explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor", I laughed. I recall that you once made an edit with the edit summary= ''.''
*:{{tq|made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit}}: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.<br>I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. ] (] · ]) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Personally, I am much more concerned about '''un'''declared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet ] . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. ] (]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I meant meat puppet. ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*<s>'''Tentative oppose''' - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
:*Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support a topic ban''' with no opinion on indef block at this time.


From what I can see, looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the ]: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide (emphasis in the original).
:::::Which is an interesting political view (I suppose ] would agree, as would others here) but I can't believe that you used that summary '''as a justification for your editing'''! And then you accuse '''me''' of having "ideological fervor"... ] (]) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:
:::::*It's quoted directly from his user page, with two words switched. -] (]) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
* Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
* Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted. Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with ] , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of ].
When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.


EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "{{tq|And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.}}." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "{{tq|That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page.}}" Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client.
:I think you two need to call it a wikiday and go take a break for a day. You're clearly at each others throats, and outside opinions will have to decide what to do here. In the meantime, you are both only making it worse for yourselves by carrying out your quarrel here. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
] has been using socks to harass editors and evade 3RR before. Two recently indefinite blocked Mbhiii IP's are and . ] (]) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


== User:CoastRedwood - Harassment ==
This whole situation is extraordinarily stupid. ], I warned you specifically about the use of the revert feature, or manually reverting people's edits. I am not seeing any attempt to engage this editor (or others for the most part) on talk pages when in a dispute. You seem to enjoy dancing around the edge of ] and in my opinion you've stepped over the line more than a few times, ironically in the very page histories you have posted here to "report" another editor. I've tried to assume good faith in this situation but that has been exhausted; there will be no more flirting with the line because there ought not be a line for you anymore. Same goes for ]. You are both engaging in the same kind of tendentious and incivil edit-warring that is absolutely unacceptable. Next time I catch either of you <s>serially</s> reverting one another, calling each other a vandal (when there is clearly no vandalism going on - please read ] before you sling accusations) or engaging in any of this sort of behavior again, I '''will''' block you without any further warning. This behavior has been going on far too long. If you cannot learn to edit in a cooperative and collegial manner, then try disengaging from each other and finding something less contentious to edit. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked for a week and warned not to do this. Good grief. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|CoastRedwood}}
Repeated personal attacks, harassment and not following behavior policies by CoastRedwood. Despite multiple warnings from multiple editors to address the behavior, CoastRedwood has edited other users' pages, engaged in personal attacks, made uncivil comments and is not willing to heed constructive feedback. Personal attacks/harassment - , , and editing others' userpages' , , , , , . ] (]) 13:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:Yeah, that's not great. A weird ] mentality toward... emojis? Mentions of anthromorphic foxes? And, frankly, the specific personal attack of ''degenerate'' used in that specific context is... it suggests a disruptive editing mindset. I don't know. Maybe their non-disruptive work on animal species has enough value that we don't go directly to a ] block (though I am on the fence about that) but, at the very least, they need a topic ban from editing other editors user pages. ] (]) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== Page copied from ] ? ==


::This is being dealt with on CoastRedwood's talk page by sysops, and escalating it to AN/I is premature.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
See ] a page copied from there. According to , the author retains all rights to content posted on MyWikiBiz, and {{user|Thekohser}} has that the page is not GFDL. Can this page be accepted? ] ]</font> 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Please see the timeline of the edits made. CoastRedwood is still approaching both the editors after two admins have already tried explaining it to him. was made recently after multiple warnings. ] (]) 14:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:See also ] ]</font> 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks for pointing out that diff. I didn't see it. That was after my formal warning, so I went ahead and blocked them for a week just now. –] <small>(])</small> 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks everyone! I'm not sure what caused this user to make such remarks against ArkHyena and I; also thankful for the quick actions taken while I was a bit busy. Some of the content they removed from my userpage was only intended to promote humor and just for a little fun, and their rationales for it sound questionable, at the least. ~ ] ] 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ah, but that was your first mistake. You see, fun is not allowed on here :P
::<sup><sub>]</sub></sup>
::] (]) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Earl Andrew ==
The original page is , its in the "Directory" space, the "Directory" space is explicitly not licensed with a compatible license (looks to be a version of "all rights reserved to MyWikiBiz"). Since MyWikiBiz is Thekohser's site, presumably that means the copyright is owned by him and he's free to reissue it GFDL? ]] 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Heat exceeding light. Legend of 14 is advised that ANI is the ''last'' resort for dispute resolution, not the first, and in the future should exhaust other options before coming here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:If as Thekohser says (), the content is posted on Misplaced Pages at the request of the author, then this needs to be authorized through ]. As it stands now, the content has to go. ] (]) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Earl Andrew}}
::Perhaps it would be acceptable to contact http://www.mywikibiz.com/User:Ockham , the author of the content on MyWikiBiz. ] (]) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Tis true, my fine lad - but yon link shows they writer gave thems permission to post here, as well. I tell ye no lie, I thinks the content be used in Misplaced Pages under ars own license (and a pretty one it is, to be sure) being donated. Yaaaarrrrr!? ] (]) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Then MyWikiBiz would need to be contacted to show that they gave permission. ] (]) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yon Cap'n of the good ship MyWikiBiz goes by the name Thekohser, and he be the fellow as written that permission be granted. Does thee suppose another tale be told if the ship were hailed directly? Yar...? ] (]) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure. I'll e-mail permissions-en to see if that would be adequate. ] (]) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*Pardon the intrusion but this seems like a cute little attempt at a breaching experiment. This could be resolved rather rapidly if thekosher decided not to be so coy about things and simply state who wrote the original article and under what license is it distributed. As far as I'm concerned if that doesn't happen in the next 48 hours or so I have no problem speedying it as a copyvio. ] (]) 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
**Thekohser <s>claims to</s> may have permission to relicense it per . ] (]) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
***I, along with Greg, received an email from the original author asking to repost the article. Although I declined to do so, I'd say that email constitutes permission to release under Misplaced Pages's current license (CC-BY-SA 3.0, not GFDL) because the original author is fully aware of Misplaced Pages's license requirements. ] 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
****It would be really helpful if you could forward said e-mail to permissions-en at wikimedia.org so this can be formalized through OTRS. Thanks. ] (]) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*****I don't think OTRS is needed since the article did not come from Kohs' web site, rather it came from ] and Kohs copied it first to MyWikiBiz before posting it in main space. ] 01:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'll see your September 2009 on Misplaced Pages's User_talk space, and raise you one on MyWikiBiz's Directory space. -- ] 02:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::: Sorry, you're right. In that case, however, the original author on MyWikiBiz needs to release the text under a compatible software license. He could do that by contacting the WMF permissions email address, or by posting a note on some page on MyWikiBiz and then we can link to it here. Right now it looks like Petrus Damianus plagiarized the copyright-protected work of Ockham. I know someone who claims to be both Petrus Damianus and Ockham, but to prove it, Ockham has to post some kind of confirmation on MyWikiBiz; either confirmation of his real name, or confirmation that he releases the article under GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0. ] 03:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::'''Confirmed''' . ] 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Earl Andrew is using personal attacks against me for leaving notices on ]. It is interfering in those discussions.
=== Page likely created by/for PD ===
{{la|Columba Ryan}}
{{Anchor|Osmund Lewry}}
This article was created by the banned user Peter Damian . ] has said that he would "take responsibility" for it . I would like more input on whether this is acceptable. G5 states that the article must be "created by a banned user in violation of his or her ban, with no substantial edits by others", however should a banned user be able to add an article through offsite coordination like this? This looks like a reasonable page, but given PD's comments on destroying wikipedia I am having trouble assuming good faith as this seems like a campaign to prove some sort of point . ] ]</font> 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:PS thank you for the compliment Peter Damian (if you are reading this), I am sure I have 10x the brain you ever had. ] ]</font> 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::You're just making yourself look more foolish when you do that. ++]: ]/] 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Diffs:
:This is the hard part of G5. PD knows this. So he's going to sock and/or proxy to get "good" articles into wikipedia in order to show us all how wrong we were about banning him for being disputatious and unpleasant. Burn. with. fire. ] (]) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826037
::Yes, I agree. While a reasonable article has been produced as a result, this is still pure trolling. I won't pretend to understand Peter's ultimate goal here, but certainly the medium-term intention seems to be to demonstrate that banning him was counterproductive to Misplaced Pages's overall goal. It's an odd form of it, I'll grant you that, but this is still disruptive sockpuppetry to prove a point. I would personally have no issue with G5ing this. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826716
:::It may be instructive to review all of the ], (but in particular: ''Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.'' ... I've done exactly that) and all of the discussion in this section of the talk: ]. The article is no longer G5-able. ++]: ]/] 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
] (]) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think Triplestop is referring to ] when he says I took responsibility. And I did, for that one. I have nothing to do with ]. Peter Damian no doubt would like to see this article deleted as it would further his campaign. My typical approach to Peter's actions is to thwart his unreasonable actions. But if he's willing to write good articles (which ] has every possibility of being), let him. Deleting it is what he wants. Or drama, whichever. Don't play that game. ++]: ]/] 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:Did you try discussing with Earl Andrew about supposed personal attacks before coming here? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agree with what Lar said, especially the last few lines. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::No I did not. How does one respond directly to disrespectful comments and accusations of bad faith, followed by a suggestion that you should do their job under ] on wikipedia, because I have no idea what to say to them. I wouldn't normally resort to ANI over these comments, but in my opinion these comments are inferring in discussions on ]. ] (]) 16:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is a lose lose situation. Banned users need to stay away, however if we delete it then it adds to his trolling campaign. But I think his use of the name "Previously Banned User" sums up his intent pretty nicely. ] ]</font> 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I would ask for an apology directly if I was getting personally attacked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::So if it's a good article, and someone else takes responsibility, chuckle to yourself and let it slide. ++]: ]/] 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I felt like asking for an apology in this case would likely escalate the disputes in question, and could be seen as provocative in this case. ] (]) 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::According ], the page can be speedy deleted on sight. So since you are taking responsibility for this I would like to see you making substantial edits. ] ]</font> 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Does opening an ANI thread for {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems}} not escalate the disputes in question? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps you might advise Lar, someone who has been editing Misplaced Pages for as many years as you have months (on this account, amyhoo), what ''further'' edits you might wish to see. Perhaps which pastime the subject were interested in, or if they have been rendered as an avatar in a Xbox game...?Sometimes, taking responsibility for an article when it was created by or on behalf of a banned editor (and you have checked the chronology to ensure it was created by PD while he was banned from WP, and not when he wasn't, I suppose per AGF) is simply to say, "This satisfies the requirements for a WP article <u>as is</u>, and I therefore take responsibility for it." Unless you can provide the policy or guideline that notes an adopted article ''must'' be substantially edited by the adoptee I think you may reconsider your strident posturing (and language). ] (]) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::I don't think anything I've done in this thread could be seen as taunting or baiting. I think a reply like "Please apologize for your personal attack" would be seen as taunting. ANI escalates the dispute, but in a way that did not unreasonably increase the chance of incivility. ] (]) 17:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::"Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban '''having no substantial edits by others.'''" This approach would please everyone would it not? And I am sorry opinions from us worthless peons don't matter. ] ]</font> 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:Neither of those is a personal attack. The second is more critical of you than the first, but still a long ways from an attack.--] (]) 16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is probably noteworthy to... where I confirmed Brandon's findings at the relevant SPI report (after blocking PD's latest sock) ++]: ]/] 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::Accusing me of making bad faith edits, without offering any evidence to support bad intentions is a personal attack. The first diff is more of a disrespectful comment than a personal attack, I could've been more clear. Both comments are bad for the discussion. ] (]) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree w/ NW. There is really no option here other than avoiding playing his games. Part of the reason he is banned is because he insisted on treating other people like this, placing them in seemingly implacable binds in order to fulfill his views about wikipedia. It's petty and fanatical and we are better off just going without it. If that means wikipedia has 1 less article on 13th century theologians so be it. ] (]) 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::You are removing non contentious information from a lot of articles, and claiming they are contentious. That to me feels like bad faith editing. Up for interpretation for sure, but in no way did I mean it as a personal attack. -- ] - ] 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Except NW was agreeing with me :) ++]: ]/] 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Provide diffs. I can't respond to unsubstantiated claims. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Well, I read his agreement as "yes we suffer a crappy tradeoff in this situation, but the last few lines (ie the decision) aren't correct". :) I don't really think that we have an easy answer available. ] (]) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:Why were you deleting ]'s birthplace? ] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::To clarify, I agree with what Lar and Skomorokh said. If Peter Damian wants to do everything he can to get good content on to Misplaced Pages, we can ignore him and chuckle at his efforts, thereby exterminating drama and adding content to the encyclopedia. If he wants to start attacking editors, we can block him. Simple as that. It may not go along with ], but that's why we have ]. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::Can you please explain how this question relates to the topic of Earl Andrew's comments? If understand why you're asking the question I'll be able to give a better answer. ] (]) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Disagree with this approach; we should approach the matter from the point of view of being an encyclopaedia first, a community second. If looking the other way while banned editors contribute productively (before immediately blocking if they start any trouble) and having mildly annoyed adminsitrators is the price we have to pay for a better eneyclopaedia, then so be it. The problem with situations like the above is that we ''defenders of the wiki'' are buying into and playing up to the moral framework of the banned. ] 22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I see no personal attacks in the diffs you provided. I would say that Earl calling you a {{tq|destructive force}} wasn't very ], but ] tells me that those comments weren't "personal" attacks. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::But that (whether or not we play into his moral framework) is largely unimportant. And frankly, if we are going to do that, let's unban PD right now. ] (]) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::"These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
::::-]
::::I never called him a "destructive force". ] (]) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I misread your comment. The quote from WIAPA still stands. ] (]) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I agree, that might have been a personal attack, but also please read ]. ANI should have been the last resort for you. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::See above comments for why I did not think I had other options. Also, see how even after being aware that I found the comments insulting/disparaging, the user continued to make them without substantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116171300-Legend_of_14-20250116164200. ] (]) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::''Insulting or disparaging'' is very different than having a disagreement. While WIAPA is ''not exhaustive'', neither of those diffs area anywhere in the same ballpark as the other examples -- this is a million miles away from {{tq|Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based (common discrimination classes)}}, {{tq|Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people}} or threats. There is no incivility in asking "how is something contention", even if it is prefixed with "how on earth"... If you feel insulted or disparaged because someone questioned the validity of your contributions, you need to grow a thicker skin. Also did you even read the section on top about ''Before posting''? Which of those have you actually attempted before coming here? Also as someone else has mentioned you should be cautioned about boomerang, meaning that your own actions also have a spotlight on them and you have volunteered put your own edits and conduct up for scrutiny. ]&thinsp;] 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No one has linked to any of my edits here. There's a difference between some criticizing an identified edit and making disparaging remarks about unidentified edits by a named editor. I can't defend the edits that the user has a problem with because they have not been clearly identified with me. When an edit I made that was identified was brought up here, I did my best to answer the questions.
::::::I did not raise every issue here on the users talk page. When I tried to raise issues on the editor's talk page see ], I got called unconstructive. When I went to the forum ], the editor escalated by disparaging me as editing in bad faith. I had reason to believe that further discussion on the talk page would go nowhere, so I posted here under ], instead of making what I felt would almost certainly be another unproductive talk page discussion. Given that since making this notice, the user has continued to make unsubstantiated claims about my character, I think I had the correct judgement. ] (]) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You have not addressed the question how the diffs you provided of EA's behavior is anywhere in the ballpark of the criteria of WIAPA. You were the one who claimed as such, so the onus is on you to substantiate in what way where their comments violating the policy on personal attacks. I would even have a hard time considering them uncivil, but even if they were, uncivility is quite a different matter than a personal attack. So which aspects of ] do you feel EA's comments closely resemble? ]&thinsp;] 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I believe the comments about me acting in bad faith are disparaging remarks about me and therefore qualify as personal attacks. ] (]) 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I also think the comment about "How in the world" is an insult against me given the context is, it was promptly followed by another comment by the same user accusing me of bad faith. I hope this explanation is satisfactory. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Suggesting my statements are a "personal attack" on you carries about the same weight as me suggesting this whole discussion is a personal attack against ''me''. You are grasping at straws. If you're going to pick fights with everyone who dares cross your path (I see you've bombarded ]'s talk page now), you may find yourself blocked. And no, that's not a threat, ''I'' am not going to block you, as that would be a conflict of interest.-- ] - ] 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The only possibilities here are "extremely stupid" or "troll". Either way it's a clear case of disruptive editing. I suppose I can't do the banning myself either, now. Oh well. ] (]) 21:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I finding Dispute resolution confusing. This convo should be closed because I didn't try to resolve all my disputes with you first, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Bushranger-20250116213500-Legend_of_14-20250116190800. But, also now that I'm trying to resolve concerns as I become aware of them with another user outside of ANI, I should also be blocked for that. Don't use ANI, use the talk page for all issues first, but also don't keep posting on the talk page. Can you please clearly state the process I should go through to resolve disputes? ] (]) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm not suggesting you should be blocked, I'm saying that if you continue with this petty behaviour, someone will inevitably block you. Learn from this experience and stop trying to pick fights with people.-- ] - ] 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not trying to start fights with others though. I've never directly commented on another's character. I've tried to focus on the content of the articles or discussion pages comments, not why such actions were done or the character of the person doing them, and on the relevant policies. What are you saying I should do differently? ] (]) 22:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You do realize you were the one who instigated this ANI case, correct? You're actually lodging a formal complaint about a different editors behavior. It's a little late to suggest you're simply an innocent bystander. ]&thinsp;] 22:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I'm not saying I'm a bystander. I'm not the one who made uncivil comments on ], which is what started this "fight". ] (]) 22:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have no opinion on this dispute, but just in case you're unaware, the behavior of anyone participating in these threads, whether as someone who's reporting, being reported, or even just commenting, may be scrutinized for wrongdoing. See ]. ] (]) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'll give the answer here I gave on ], I removed uncited claims about immigration status. To add additional information beyond what I said there, Canada's immigration system has somewhat recent come under fire for being used to suppress wage growth https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/, so I removed the uncited content because for that reason it could be considered contentious. ] (]) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think it is relevant to include an instance on ] where the user says they're "suspicious of this user's true intentions", without linking to any edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Earl_Andrew#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116180500-Tarlby-20250116174800 This happened after I initiated the ANI. ] (]) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::], what sort of resolution are you seeking here? Because so far, while some editors acknowledge that Earl Andrew could have been more civil, no one has agreed with you that these are personal attacks. Are you looking for validation, an apology, a chance to vent, or some kind of sanction because the latter won't be happening based on the response here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Another user has agreed that these could be personal attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Corvette_ZR1-20250116174800-Legend_of_14-20250116173700. I was hoping for a retraction of all the unsubstantiated claims about me acting in bad faith and comments that the user is suspicious of my intentions and an interaction ban with me, and a restriction against making comments about my character anywhere on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That is not going to happen. is not ''remotely'' a personal attack. could be more ] but is ''also'' not a personal attack. And again, you '''must''' attempt to resolve issues '''before''' coming to ANI, which you by your own admission chose not to do. Strongly suggest this be closed as there is nothing to do here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Chronic refusal to comply re edit summaries/copious, tendentious editing ==
On second thought it is best to keep this page. Thank you for your contribution Peter Damian however you are still banned and you are not getting what you want. ] ]</font> 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked for a week. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Despite years of requests by numerous editors to leave edit summaries, ] makes another apology, another promise, leaves cursory remarks for a minority of their edits for a short while, then back to highly prolific editing with no explanations. (Raised repeatedly in ] (most recently ]), (blanked, apparently in a botched archiving attempt) and ].)


This would be problematic if the edits were not contentious but a high proportion are. Currently they are . (See again the iterations of their talk pages referred to above, ] and ], re OR, inaccurate citation, excessively lengthy quotes, overwhelming articles with peripheral or off-topic material, neutrality concerns, primary and self-published sources, ENGVAR, MOS, slow warring, blanking of maintenance tags, editorialising, anachronism.)
*In fact, I think Damian should be unblocked. You have to understand his particular form of disruption. He wants to prove (it seems to me) that Misplaced Pages's policies are defective and are geared to preventing useful additions to the encyclopedia—the reason we are all supposedly here.
:#He was blocked for 3RR on ]. He was edit warring with an IP that refused to discuss edits on the talk page, and deliberately noting in his edit summaries that he was exceeding 3RR. He was blocked, but the IP was not blocked until 24 hours later after an outcry on the noticeboard. What he thinks he proved is that the blocking policy is enforced in a non-sensical and capricious way. But what he failed to do is use the processes that are already in place to deal with this kind of problem (such as ]).
:#He was blocked for using sockpuppets to tag an alleged sockpuppet of ], exposing what he thinks is hypocrisy that treats FT2 differently than ]. What he failed to do was use the process already in place for dealing with user conduct problems (laying out a case at ]).
:#He now uses sockpuppets to create articles, then identifies himself hoping someone will delete the content, or as in this case creates content on another site and asks someone to copy it across. What he wants to prove is that good content will be deleted for political reasons, putting politics ahead of the stated goal of writing an encyclopedia. What he fails to do is simply edit quietly as the sockpuppet, since if he did not call attention to himself by disruptive conduct, no one would object to his creating content.
:I think that a more rational approach to Damian is to encourage him to follow the dispute resolution processes already in place, whether it involves article content or user conduct. (They may not be perfect, but they are not going to get any better by deliberately ingnoring and undermining them.) Whenever he feels the need to climb the Reichstag and ignore the appropriate process in favor of being deliberately disruptive, he should be blocked for some standard length of time (maybe 5-7 days) and then just ignore further demonstrations by him. He could remain unblocked forever or spend the next 5 years blocked for 120 out of every 121 hours, it would be his choice.
:It is important to recognize that unlike some other banned users, for whom I definitely would not advocate this approach, Damian can not cause significant disruption unless he has the unwitting help of other editors and admins. Just stop playing the game by his rules. ] 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::Yep. ++]: ]/] 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::I seem to remember he was banned for being unbeleivably difficult and unpleasant and we just rationalized it by listing those specific proscribed acts. I would support an unban if someone would give me reason to believe that he wouldn't just come back here, act like a jerk to anyone who wasn't a classicist and then get upset when we ask him not to act like a jerk. ] (]) 05:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::His current indef ban follows from tagging FT2 as a sockpuppet user, after his unban in 2008 included a condition that he not interact or discuss FT2. I think this original condition was too broad, that he should have been allowed to use the appropriate dispute resolution channels as long as he did not go outside those channels (harassment, using socks himself, etc). For example, he was threatened with blocking or actually blocked (I forget which) for making AfD nominations of articles FT2 had contributed to years before. I never meant for the prohibition on harassing FT2 to be interpreted that broadly. As I said, I think the best way to handle him when he disrupts to make a point is to give a standard length block, without drama, and to ignore any attempts to raise more drama. Think of him, if you must, as a . By himself, he can only make sparks, someone else must provide the fuel if he is to get a fire going. ] 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


] but closed down after , later when there was no compliance.
===Sockpuppet tagging page===
is completely inappropriate. Whoever is doing that should stop now. It is one thing to have such a view, it is another to create a secondary account for the purpose of pushing such a view. ] (]) 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*That's just some drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons....and blocked. ] 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:Was it confirmed? Because, I must say, if it was Peter then he is really scrapping the bottom of that barrel for names. ] (]) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry I was not clear. it's not Damian. It's someone from a different country, actually, who has a couple dozen sockpuppets and seems to be up to no good in various ways, such as . ] 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Gesh, Thatcher. When you say "drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons", you have to know that it applies to many, many people here. :) ] (]) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I thought it would be clear from the context that I meant "A drama whore who is not Peter Damian" :) ] 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::PeterSymonds, maybe? ] ] (]) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


The abundance and extent of edits and the almost total omission of explanation makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work. If the much-repeated excuse of absent-mindedness is to be taken seriously, it indicates instead a significant and chronic competence issue. They either have no ability or no intention to engage meaningfully to explain their editing. ] (]) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== Unlocking requested ==


:I haven't looked into this in detail but I warned K1ngstowngalway1 about edit summaries on 25 November 2024, got a promise to improve, and note that they are still only using edit summaries occasionally and omitting them for substantial edits, eg {{Diff|Jacobitism|prev|1269555399}},{{Diff|Jacobitism|prev|1269553173}},{{Diff|William Davies (priest)|1268928050}}, to pick just three recent ones. ] <small>(])</small> 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I found a little mistake in the Elvis Presley article. However, it has a padlock on it so I can't fix it. So I did some hunting and found that webmaster, Tiptoety, put the lock on it. However, his page also has a lock on it so I can't notify and ask him.
::For more regarding problematic editing at Jacobitism, see ]. ] (]) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, recently come across this editor at ], which prompted me to look at their other edits. I would say that lack of edit summaries is the least of the issues (albeit it does seem to be some sort of passive-aggressive deliberate stance - I don't buy that they consistently 'forget' to do it.) Their editing pattern appears to be to introduce tendentious POV edits based on ] and ] with frequent misuse of ] sources. They ], often to concepts which are anachronistic or make a POV connection. They've been trying to make these sorts of changes to Jacobitism since last July and won't engage on the talk page. Their had the edit summary {{tq|Undid revision, as certain editors seem to have an emotional attachment to Whig history and to be unwilling to tolerate the use of more recent historical scholarship that places the conflicts of the era in a different light and shows that today's Britain represents a compromise between Whig and Jacobite ideology.}}. The misuse of sources and the links in the edits they want to restore in that revert seem typical of their editing approach having looked at what they have been doing elsewhere. ] (]) 16:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree entirely, including that the lack of edit summaries is but one of very many problems in their editing, having routinely encountered all the others you note. My reason for highlighting edit summaries is that it is the most abundantly demonstrable indication of the chronically tendentious nature of their editing, upon which we can agree to act. (FWIW, I did raise the broader issues and also last August but these discussions did not result in sanction.)


::::The following are all talk page discussions where the leaving of edit summaries has been requested, or their omission noted, many featuring repeated reminders. They start in 2006 in their ] incarnation, ], ], ], ], then in the current id of ], , , , , , , , , , , (trawled from the edit history) and ], ], ], ], ], ] from the current talk page. More than enough in itself to impose a block. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Please remove these locks or tell me where there's a subscription page so I can upgrade my membership to a paid membership and presumably have the key to these padlocks. This page is also hard to find so Misplaced Pages is not the most user friendly. ] (]) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I see they have never been blocked. I'd suggest a short block - a week? - for disruptive editing. Anyone disagree? ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:You don't need to pay to be able to edit these articles. Your account just needs to be ] (you need at least 10 edits, and your account needs to be older than 10 days). Although some pages are locked against all but our admins, who are elected via community consensus. If you want to become autoconfirmed before 10 edits and 4 days, you can request it at ], so long as you provide a good reason (contact me if you need help with that). Or, to get someone who is already autoconfimred to edit, you can go to the talk page of the article (get to this by going to the article, and click the "discussion" tab along the top), and create a new section (by selecting the "new section" tab). And into this section add this code:<blockquote>
*:I agree. ] (]) 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<nowiki>{{Editsemiprotected}}</nowiki>
*::Certainly. ] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<enter details of the edit wanted here>
*] is '''blocked''' for one week. ] (]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
</blockquote>
{{abot}}
:Hope that helps. - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


== Block request: IP user edit-warring and not discussing edits. ==
*I have added you manually to the "autoconfirmed" usergroup that Kingpin mentioned, so you should be free to edit the Elvis Presley (or any other semi-protected) article. And just a quick side note because you mentioned paid subscriptions, there has never been nor will there ever be a subscription necessary to edit a Misplaced Pages article. Regards, <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = IP warned against edit warring. ] (]/]) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


:: ...anyone else added Elvis's article to their watchlist recently? (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::]!--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 21:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Elvis has left the building, everyone knows that. But his article (and his article's watchlist) will rock on for a very long time. ++]: ]/] 07:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


IP user ] is engaging in edit-warring on ] regarding the vehicle being either "operational" or "under-development." Another user started a discussion on the talk page and I participated in it and referenced the discussion when reverting the IP user's edit. The IP user has since reverted the edit again and not participated in the discussion. I can't contact this user further as they are not on an account and do not want to continue an edit-war. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
== Unintentional oversight of admins? ==
{{abot}}


== User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is being highly disruptive (battleground, attacks, edit war) ==
I assume the fact that no one addressed before they were archived as an unintentional oversight. (???)
{{atop
| result = Blocked. SPI still open. ] (]/]) 02:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)<br><br>To noone's surprise, PopPunkFanBoi69 was indeed a sock. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|PopPunkFanBoi69}}


I'm not sure that User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is ]. Their edit history consists of a lot of unsourced content additions/changes, such as ], ]. They have made talk page posts that are personal attacks or ] style, such as ] (battleground), ] (attack).
Some users have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally delete several images that consist entirely of text and/or simple geometric shapes. I request that they all be restored as improper speedy deletions.
:]
:]
:<s>]</s> restored
:]
:] *note that this one was deleted after someone changed the file tag. Needs to be fixed.
:<s>]</s> restored


Despite being warned by ] (]) for edit warring on ']', they continue to restore their edits without consensus (]).
While I view these as clear PD images, it doesn't mean they can't have a valid use and a FUR even if someone decides they aren't PD. No notice was given as far as I can tell and speedy deletion wasn't appropriate here. Request these images be restored and, if the orignal deleter decides, place them back up for deletion via normal channels. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


One final thing that made me proceed to making this AN/I report: check out ] on User:PopPunkFanBoi69's talk page, here's a quote from that: {{tq|This is why I fucking hate editing Misplaced Pages because multiple accounts that have been blocked & having to create a new account!}} This suggests to me that this is a sockpuppet account, although I don't know about this user and their previous accounts.
: Um, ]? They aren't clear PD images to me, and so they had an improper license, a valid speedy criteria. If you want them restored, you can ask the deleting admin and then go onto DRV. I don't see what else should be done. -- ] (]) 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Either way, I see numerous policy violations here, such as civility, edit warring and potential violation of the multiple accounts policy. —&nbsp;] ] 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::What specifically about them isn't PD? They consist entirely of typeface (some might have simple geometric shapes too). All of those are not eligible for copyright. While they all clearly have trademark protections, they are PD images, not copyrights. What am I missing here? <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


:You haven’t looked at the Misplaced Pages articles ] & ] for sources! So you don’t see the sources then stay quiet! Look at the ] article also for sources! ] (]) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Furthermore, if they aren't clear, you nominate for deletion and ], not just delete them. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:You may not know me but come to my talk page if you wanna know about me & my previous accounts like I understand you’re concerned for me & I’m inviting you to my talk page so you can get the full story! ] (]) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:I would have reported the problem here, but I got the sense I had seen this behavior before. After confirming my suspicion, I started a casepage at ]. What with socking, a personal attack, and a 3RR violation, this person is not likely to retain their editing ability. ] (]) 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Several of these images have been restored. Thank you. If anyone feels the restorations are in error, ''please'' feel free to nominate them for deletion: ]. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::I’m not a sockpuppet I’m just a very smart guy who knows a lot about music & Rock genres! Please by all means call me nasty names but I reported you! ] (]) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== EdsonCordeirodeSouza - Disruptive editing and edit warring ==
::::Working with the deleting admins now to at least move the discussion to ] if not full restoration. Seems like a simple mistake, easy to fix. I'll place the results here for the record. This section can be archived and I'll add the results to the archive under ] if no one has a problem with that. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. ] (]/]) 03:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


== Shadowrun Wiki Links Dispute ==


* {{Userlinks|EdsonCordeirodeSouza}}
I was directed here by a helpful moderator, Leuko, who could not address my issue with another user's (MJBurrage) insinuative comments that he/other contributors were the deciding factors on how many and what links would be added to the wikipage there. The grievance with these types of actions, and the ethics behind them, prompted this post.


The user in question has been persistently disruptive editing and edit warring, currently primarily on ]. As it's been excluded for however long, the contestant/mask/celebrity they continue adding to the table was '''''not''''' a competing contestant and was only in the season as a special guest, as already mentioned in prose text with the table. Also in that they keep edit warring back to, they continue messing up one of the sources URLs, changing it from <code>https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-'''anonymouse'''-1235719311/</code> to <code>https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-'''anony mouse'''-1235719311/</code>, which in turn, continues to create .
The heart of the matter is whether or not other resource sites outside of the single dubiously "non-official" external link should be allowed and why. This site's (Dumpshock, owned by a Shadowrun game developer) operation by paid employees of the game studio itself suggest ethical and conflict of interest issues of their own in turning the wikipage into one large, in-house advertisement. It has sparked a heated debate there, and has quickly become the largest discussion posting on the thread. With only two contributory voices (MJBurrage and Canterbury Tail) trying to tell a slew of supporters that 'community consensus' is needed, when consensus is obviously residing with a camp outside of their viewpoint.


As seen on their talk page, this also does not appear to be their first time disruptively editing and edit warring. Despite their warnings less than a month ago and their recent warnings I've added to their talk page, they continue doing the same exact thing and there is ] '''whatsoever'''. I had this at AIV, but as it was not specifically 'vandalism', I was advised to come here. Hoping this can be resolved, thank you. ] (]) 02:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I recognize that I may have a conflict of interest (as a representative) in the matters of getting a specific site link (#S-Run Community) added, but the support for that link has been very strong and near-unanimous. This link was also allowed to reside there without hindrance in the past as a resource offering information (Gameplay Logs, Campaign Presentations, exclusive movie content, etc.) until a loss of hosting caused it to be taken down. Now that the site is being rebuilt to its former specifications, there is suddenly an issue with its re-addition -- as well as the addition of any other site to the external links area. As a representative of the aforementioned site, I will not be attempting the link it to avoid conflicts of interest; however, the support for its addition and the criteria it meets speak for itself as far as 'community consensus' is concerned.
{{abot}}


== User:Janessian is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia ==
For reference to the development of this debate, the Talk histories of users 'Solorunner', 'MJBurrage', 'Canterbury Tail'; and moderators 'Leuko' and 'Vancouver Outlaw' within the past 72 hours. Reference Sections for the Discussion page itself include numbers '13 and 21+Appendices'.
{{atop|result=Editor Janessian has been indefinitely blocked for a whole laundry list of reasons so I'm closing this complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 17:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)<br>
<br>
And talk page access revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Janessian}}


Janessian seems to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to harass editors over a pair of images they don't like in the article ]. They have already been sanctioned twice for edit warring on the article, but this latest comment between myself, ], ], and ], they posted this lovely little gem ]] on JBW's talk page. Nelson has just informed me that Janessian has made a rather unpleasant comment on phil knights talk page as well ]].] (]) 04:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in monitoring/addressing these issues.
:], do you have more diffs that show a pattern of behavior? I think there has alreay been a report about them at ANI and a link to that discussion would help the case you are making. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::It looks like they were called both to ANI and ANEW. Links to prevous discussions help put a complaint in context. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Link to my complaint to ANEW: ]], ]]. JBW handled the first block. ] (]) 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, I was mistaken about a prior visit to ANI. I thought Isabelle blocked them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::At this point my main concern is protecting fellow editors. Janessian's conduct has caused @] what seems to be a fair amount of distress. ] (]) 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Isabelle blocked Janessian from editing the article. but some degree of talk page harassment has continued. ] (]) 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


* Janessian's editing is unacceptable in several ways, including edit-warring, legal threats, and personal attacks. I gave a short block, and when the unacceptable editing resumed Isabelle Belato gave an indef partial block from the article in question. For both blocks edit-warring was given as the reason, but it is perfectly clear that the problems go beyond that. The block from the article has been followed by unacceptable user talk page editing. I shall convert the block to a total one, apart from Janessian's own talk page, and post a message to that page in which I shall try to make it clearer what the problems are, and what can be done about them. Unfortunately it will take me a little while to get time to do that, but I hope minutes rather than hours. ] (]) 10:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


* Well, in the 42 minutes between my posting the message above and my getting time to come back and follow it up, Janessian posted a couple of messages on the talk page of the article, which were much more like attempts to start a civil discussion. I shall therefore hold fire on the block, and post a message to their talk page about the way forward. ] (]) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Note: I've notified ] of this discussion, which seems to be about whether Solorunner can include a link to some fan site at ]. -- ] (]) 08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*:@], @], @], Well...I seen the message too. I had read through, but I had a bad feeling about this. Plus, all crime wiki articles often use news reports apart from court sources or books to support the information published on the article. I find that he did not comprehend or understand that part, and some of his parts about working with the police to write crime on wikipedia is a bit hard considering that we are not working in that field. He also said he will refer to crime report in this case ] (]) 12:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@], @], @], how will we respond to his messages? , , , , ] (]) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], @], @], in the unpleasant message in @]'s talkpage, it seems that he knew some hints of where I am and what I am doing. I felt uneasy about how he replied in the talk page and his most recent messages. ] (]) 12:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|NelsonLee20042020}}, I haven't looked into any other aspects of this, but {{u|Janessian}} does not seem to have posted anything in that message that you have not disclosed on your talk page. ] (]) 12:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What do you mean? could you specify in your statement please? ] (]) 12:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The messages I am referring to, @], are the ones in the external links I placed above. ] (]) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::@], , . I am sending you his first messages in my talk page (which were removed), if you are talking about what he said in my talk page. ] (]) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::So far. These are the recent replies he gave to some of us. , , . ] (]) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:Yup this is a not here user look at this comment;
:All I did was ask some rhetorical questions on the ], to point out why we have notability policies. In a later comment I explicitly linked to those policies—] and ]—when I realized that Solorunner had chosen to interpret said questions as declarations.
:''Hi I am not interested in news reporting. '''I am not interested in working with editors.''' I only want the right thing to be done, which is to take down the photos of all the deceased in the crime articles which you guys have been circulating - half truths because a lot of if is copy and paste without due investigation. This is not fair to the deceased and not fair to the readers. A global reader will read it, not knowing that it is not the complete truth.''
:I am sorry that Solorunner feels that anyone explaining why S-Run ''might'' not be encyclopedic, is somehow making a personal attack. I even suggested a course of action that could make such a link applicable to the article; write a referenced section on on-line play of the Shadowrun RPG. If one of the independent sources used mentions S-Run than a link would probably be appropriate. —]<sup>(]•])</sup> 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:]
:; ''Little or no interest in working collaboratively''
:: ''Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict like ] for ], ], ], ], or ].''
:Yup indeed block is warranted.] (]) 02:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::].] (]) 03:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tqq|My lawyer has used the word "offending" portion. He advised me to contact Wikimedia to remove the offending portion before taking any further action.}} . {{tqq| I was advised by a friend in Germany to make a police report and seek the help of lawyers to get the pictures down. My lawyer advised me to mediate with Misplaced Pages first and see if it yields any results.}} This pretty blatantly is a ] case. Note also the veiled accusation of socking by JBW and continued ]s against NelsonLee20042020 , and apparent utter disregard for ] {{tqq| If you guys are interested in crime reporting, you have to conduct interviews with people. You cannot simply cut and paste from other sources without verifying if it is true.}} . Pretty sure this should be a complete indef, I'd do it myself but would defer to one of the already-involved (in the "actively working on this" sense vis-a-vis ]) admins. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Seems to take an issue with me because I've been telling them to "get real," because they've been harassing @] and generally trying to intimidate the poor guy. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Unless someone is proposing a CBAN, which I don't think is justified here, I don't see why the user has not been indeffed sitewide. I respect {{U|Isabelle Belato}} and {{U|JBW}}, the only two admins who have taken administrative action, but even post JBW's final warning, the user continued their disruptive nonsense. I saw very little indication that the user was going to change their overall approach, let alone their ''only'' interest in being here, and I've indeffed the user accordingly; details of the many bases for the block are in the block log.--] (]) 14:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The editor was given plenty of chances to course correct, but they decided to keep repeating the same mistakes. I have no issue with the indefinite site-wide block here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yep, good block. ]] 15:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== A Case of Vandalism and Ignorance ==
::Also note that Solorunner runs the website in question, so there's an obvious COI issue as well. ] (]) 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== External link "Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika/At Thy will, South Africa" ==


There is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page ].
{{resolved|Update: spamlist amended/issue resolved (for now) ] 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}
There's a host of IPs going 'round, adding a video by the Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation to all South Africa-related articles, particularly ]. The video, tellingly, starts out by talking about "the civilizing light of Europe" that was brought to the dark continent and continues in a similar tone. I just weeded out most of them (I hope all of them), see my contribs.


'''Pls Understand whole matter'''
Despite the fact that a was started at the said page, the IPs are unwilling to engage in a conversation, switch to a different address and re-add the link (even putting it sometimes at the top of articles, or very close to the top). I'm at a loss. I don't think I can request semi-protection for 37 articles at a time... Opinions? ] 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


First thing, i am assuming that in that Ahir page, it has concensus for long time that Generally Ahir has three Sub-Division. 1) Yaduvanshi 2) Nandavanshi and 3) Goallavanshi ,
: ] the link? The website seems to be hosted on the ] and we can debate its overall later another time. From a search at ], there's quite a few more uses (the election pages). -- ] (]) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years.


But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following -
::That could be a good solution. I'd be interested in a centralized discussion regarding the video's merits, but running around undoing stuff isn't my cup of tea. ] 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


At first stance , i like their reason of these editing and thought probably this guy has a valid reason for doing that and I ignored.
::: I don't think we really work on centralized discussion really. If the video is a ] then it can be used anywhere it's considered relevant. If it's not, it's not appropriate anywhere. If they're just spamming anywhere and everywhere, then they'll all be removed. If there's a remote attempt at some discussion, then it's worth having. -- ] (]) 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


I myself for the first time came here for the inclusion of a word ' Prakrit' here as it is well known fact with citation
:::: for proposed blacklisting. I hope I did this right, never done this before. If somebody finds the time, please check it to see if it's ok. ] 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{added}} to the blacklist. ]--] (]) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Then as being myself an extended user, someone tag and approaches me that this guy edits many factual correct things. pls correct it.
== Multiple socks of TheStrayCat ==
then i got into this history contributions n all.
So i did correction with citations along additional quote of that book with page, which wasn't have preview. and


But that guy again revet all this and said please add citation without reading citation that i actually provided
{{resolved|Quite a sockfarm. 30 socks + master bagged and tagged at ]. Nothing more to do here. ] (]) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}
Seems to be a pretty obvious case - {{user|TheStrayCat}}, {{user|IzDaNocky}}, {{user|DudeBrownie}}, {{user|Katesparrow}} and {{user|Rocket to Jupiter}} have been used, one after the other, to perform the exact same type of edits. ] (]) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Then i go his talk page and told that guy to undo those edits as it has two book reference along with page and quote
Add {{user|RugratsFan2}} to the list... ] (]) 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought he would give me a valuable reply but instead of this, he just delete or archive my Talk and said that i should go for admin
but i don't know who admin is here.


Now i go on editing all these again with three more book reference in consecutive three edits and and left a talk page discussion as well ]
:And now {{User|Anti-Sockpuppet}}, which is practially an admission of guilt... ] (]) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


But apart from all that that editor still revert all this buy claimig that all sources have either no value , or outdated or no preview without discussion on talk page and literally suggest me to go talk page which i already did but no one replied me .
::...{{user|Wikis4everybody}}... ] (]) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


This is totally i think Vandalism Case.
Okay. None of these accounts you are listing are performing the same edits as TheStrayCat. They are merely new accounts that are editing pages regarding animated films. TheStrayCat however matches the MO of a vandal who tacked on "animated" or "cartoon" to television series and films that were animated, or were merely animated in part. Stop listing them all.—] (]) 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:I didn't claim they were the same edits, I wrote that they are the '''same type''' of edits. ] (]) 12:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::That's what I meant.—] (]) 12:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
However, they are all accounts utilized to edit articles regarding actual animated films.—] (]) 11:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


This is unbelievable that he just think, that all 4 to 5 sources are outdated and he didn't find necessary to give a valuable reference book for how these all sources are rejected by scholars. Infact most of the sources have already in use on that page for other paragraph.
:The main efforts of {{user|IzDaNocky}} and {{user|DudeBrownie}} thus far seems to be reverting {{user|TheStrayCat}}. Could be an attention-seeker doing vandalism edits on one hand and "heroically" repairing them on the other. If so, then this is someone with WAY too much free time. ] (]) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


that's all , hoping it need an urgent interrogation. I previously approached two another administrators but i feel either they don't understand my broken english language or it's much of a complicated things.
::It's the timing of it all that caught my attention. I haven't checked account creation times, but I'd bet money that the puppet accounts were created right after the last edit of the previous account. Classic serial sockpuppetry tactic - create an account, make a few edits, move on to the next account. ] (]) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Regards.
:::All the suspect accounts listed there seem to be blocked.- ] 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>


:This report has the characteristics of a content dispute. I would suggest discussing on talk page, and if the editor engages in a edit war, report them to ]. ] 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, but because Ryulong directed me to stop listing new socks, there are a few more that haven't been blocked. ] (]) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::] seems to be the place to list them?- ] 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::It would be '''''if''''' IP users were able to create new reports. ] (]) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::My ignorance is vast, and I thank you for lightening a bit of it. I fear I have edited anon only when I suddenly found myself logged out in the middle of a session. My apologies if I seemed callous, I assure you it was ignorance only.- ] 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: ] is up; I added a CU request. Please submit additional evidence/add socks as necessary. ] (]) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


==Regarding edit warring, vandalism and personal attacks by ]==
== User ] being disruptive ==
] has been told to refrain from adding Jan Suraaj Party as a major contender above ] and ] in ] by me and ]. ] has also reverted his such edits once. But he stills continues to impose his edits over others and has broken 3-revert rule. Then he starts arguing and makes personal attacks. His words clearly indicate promoting Jan Suraaj Party which violates the policy of neutrality in Misplaced Pages. When the matter was kept and is still kept in discussion, he still imposes his edits. He is already warned for hijacking another page. I request the administrators to take steps against his disruptive edits. They can check ] and (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2025_Bihar_Legislative_Assembly_election&action=history). ] (]) 08:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:Its just one sided answer where he circle me a guilty every step. Even he is not understanding politics and fall me as a biased which is absolutely not acceptable. ] (]) 08:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm having a serious problem with user ], under justification were vandalism, where he ] that classification by assuming bad faith and pointing to old unrelated edits in my talk page, he ignored the , before those edits were made, and the of the article (before problematic changes in that article). Instead he reverted to a that he liked better, without making that change explicit in the edit summary, restoring problematic '''and''' . That action was deceptive, unjustified, ignored the previous stable versions and, as many of his last actions ]. I think the user is having serious problem understanding Misplaced Pages's policies and editing process.--] (]) 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== Formal Report: Request for Sanctions Against Editor "@Notwally" ==
:It appears you are having a content war. From first glance ] seems to be attempting to adhere to a more ] point of view. Not ALL of your recent changes fail NPOV, but enough were to justify the revert. For example, you changed the heading "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex". You removed references to Christian promotion of abstinence and re-expressed it as if Misplaced Pages itself was advocating abstinence. I don't necessarily regard your edits as vandalism but they are POV biased and deserved to be reverted. You are unlikely to find many allies to your case here. ] (]) 14:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|result={{NAC}} Summed up by ] below. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::I don't know which specific edit you're talking. I'm talking about the latest. Where he says were vandalism, but restored to another version that isn't neither the latest or the last stable version (before content dispute started). You can see more details on the article talk page.
{{collapse top|OP blocked as a sock; entire thread was mostly AI-generated piffle anyway. ] 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::I've made on the article, but since Simon Seed was reverting all, I then (before recent changes started), as it was, so we could discuss all the changes on top of that, as by the talk page. It doesn't mean I agree with that old version, right the opposite, otherwise I wouldn't have changed it into to (the first before Simon Seed started reverting)
'''To:''' Misplaced Pages Administrators
::I didn't change "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex", that was simple the way it was in that earlier version. I didn't make any specific change for that purpose.
::Christian promotion of abstinence was removed (13:13, 16 September 2009) under the following justification "". I had former that section in a balanced way, but that change was reverted by Simon Speed, as all my edits in that article.
::Abstinence was ] citing reliable sources and presenting both POVs.
::I would like to hear other administrators if that user behavior, which just reverts all my edits using prejudice argumentation (assumption of bad faith) is appropriate.--] (]) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Subject:''' Request for Administrative Review of Editor "@]" Due to ], ], and Contentious Behavior
:::You are perfectly free to appeal for the input of further admins. I will recuse from further comment. ] (]) 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Filed by:''' Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59)
:As with the ] incident opened yesterday, I don't see a note at the user's talk page about this bit. I have added one. I also updated WQA to say this issue has been taken to ANI.] (]) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''<big>1. Summary of Issues</big>'''
Thank you to Sineed for informing me and thank you to Nutriveg for escalating this: this is one of the few points on which I am in agreement with them. Thank you to Manning for considering that my reversions on ] were justified, however since that point Nutriveg re-reverted, then ] reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted, then ] reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted and then I reverted their edits. Would anyone wanting to deal with this please note the following edits Nutriveg made to their talk page spanning most of their editing career :- 2009-09-19 2009-04-20 2009-03-12 2008-12-14 . --] (]) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


The editor "@]" has engaged in a persistent pattern of edit warring, removal of sourced content, aggressive debating, and violations of contentious topic restrictions across multiple articles. Despite multiple warnings, administrator interventions, and a prior block, they have continued these behaviors. Given their history of disruption, I request administrative intervention in the form of:
: I don't see an actionable problem. Maybe I am being dense.
: I do see a content dispute. I do see some too-large changes, some of which are problematic, some are not, all being done at once. Because 1 edit had such a wide range of changes, a single made MANY changes, and may make it "feel" as if all one's changes are being reverted.
: I suggested to ] making more focused edits, so that it is easier to work with them, should an editor oppose.- ] 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


* A ''']''' from contentious topics, ] (BLPs), political articles, film articles.
That page is currently blocked for 3 days, but the dispute continues at ]. --] (]) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* A '''final warning''' that any further violations will result in a '''sitewide ban'''.
:: Sinneed, I've already done that, to an earlier version (7 September 2009) and , but suddenly, after a few days user Simon Speed deleted all those edits and restored to (16 September 2009) arguing vandalism. It's the he does that. He only reverts all my edits saying I'm acting in bad faith and doing vandalism.--] (]) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* Consideration of a '''sitewide ban if disruptive behavior continues'''.


Reason (Will be discussed explicitly at the end of this report, in section "Key Incidents and Timeline"):
My last edit to ] was at 19:18 on 2009-09-20 when I reverted to the last edit of neutral editor ] which Nutriveg had reverted. Nobody is editing that article at the moment and I am trying to stay out of the discussion as this is exhausting. Any admin can check the response the 2 new editors are getting from Nutriveg on the talk page. I am now trying to deal with the issue mentioned above which seems more and more like ]. Lets face it, looking at past history, '''this user is a troll'''. I admit that I have fed them, but then trolls do what they need to to get fed. Will an admin please check the history, as after this Nutriveg will move on to new pages and new editors as they have done in the past. --] (]) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::The edit that motivated this section, it's on top of it, was , where using an excuse to revert vandalism you ignored that earlier version (7 September 2009) and reverted to later version (16 September 2009).
::] didn't knew the article history then but now is aware of the last stable version of the article. But you were well aware when you did that revert to (16 September 2009) instead of (7 September 2009), since you were there at the time it was done (because of the reverts made by you) and followed that argument in the article ].
::You just reverting all my edits, attacking me of troll, bad faith and vandalism, instead of proposing content changes beyond reverting to unreferenced text, is exactly the problem we are having here.--] (]) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


* '''Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes):''' '''13+ cases''' (2021 – Present)
== Edit war and Peronal Attacks. ==
* '''Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions):''' '''1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024)'''
* '''Warnings for Edit Warring:''' '''5+ formal warnings''' (Ongoing since at least 2022)
* '''Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses):''' '''10+ incidents'''
* '''Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing):''' '''15+ cases'''


'''<big>2. Evidence of Edit Warring and Policy Violations</big>'''
] has been counseled on making personal attack and he continues to make them. He is also in violation of 3rr ] ] (]) 16:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:I count five reverts (so far) by ] to the same page, which surely breaches the three-revert rule as well. It smells strongly of censorship to me, given the high number of personal attacks that are flung about on that talk page without being reverted. ] (]) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::<s>You haven't been blocked, Mick has. ] (]) 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::::ec, Micks action of posting what looks to me like an uncivil comment about another user and then repeatedly reinserting it after it has been removed by other users is a bit much and not needed at all.] (]) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Reverting Vandallism or personal attacks aren't considered violations. ] (]) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. That's useful to know. ] (]) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: Doing it six times isn't clever, though. Report it here or at ] before you break the 3RR line next time, please. <b>]</b> 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::No arguements there. I did however base it off ] 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, the problem is that ] clearly says that personal attacks aren't vandalism. Confusing, isn't it? <b>]</b> 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::MickMacNee has been blocked for 2weeks by User Cirt. ] (]) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''] Edit War (September 2024)'''
There is a discussion about this at ], where there appears to be a consensus for shortening the two-week block, as the course of action most likely to reduce drama. Note that the editor against whom the personal attacks were directed is {{User|Tfz}}, who also supports lifting the block.


* Reverted multiple times, ignoring ] (burden of proof).
I suggest shortening the block to 48 hours. Are there any objections to that? --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* Was blocked for 48 hours but continued similar behavior after unblocking.
* Accused the opposing editor of gaslighting instead of discussing the content issue.


'''] Edit War (December 2024)'''
None, So long as the attacks stop.] (]) 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


* Repeatedly re-added content without consensus.
== Editor(s) refusing to get the point. ==
* Received a formal edit-warring warning but continued.
* Ignored contentious topic restrictions.


'''] Edit War (December 2024)'''
On ] (yes, shut up; I go where the problems take me and no article doesn't deserve attention simply because of what it is) two IPs ({{ip|209.6.87.112}} and {{ip|173.67.248.75}}; though I have a hunch they're the same person) keep changing the numbering style from season format (1**, 2**, 3**, etcetera), which the page was originally at, to just a continual list (The first season is in season format, the second season just . I've explained twice how season numbering format works and 'they' are just completely ignoring me. Now I'm moderately sure ''I'm'' not doing anything wrong here; I'm simply reverting the page to it's original format. I'm technically considering this vandalism, since I've explained how the format is supposed to be and I'm being ignored.


* Engaged in multiple reversions over a minor issue (character titles).
Given the situation, will I get in trouble for continually reverting it; or is this considered an exception to 3RR? On the other hand, can ''they'' be reported for 3RR? ]] 16:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* Ignored the article’s long-standing consensus.
:. IPs are making no attempt to communicate at all. ]] 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* Was given an official warning for edit warring.
:Keep reporting them to AIV - I blocked the one I saw there - and give an earlier ip contribtions as evidence of systematic disruption. Otherwise, go report it at SPI and see if a CU will comment on the consequences of a rangeblock. ] (]) 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''] Edit War (September 2024)'''
== ] and the ] article ==


* Involved in multiple content disputes with different editors.
For more than two years, since the day the article was first created, the ] falsely and without sourcing identified a notable entertainer as the May 2005 holder of this title, and linked to her article. The entertainer in question is a Colombian television performer with no discernible involvement in the pornographic/erotica industry, who is also moderately prominent in the US for appearing in Telemundo productions. This is a clear BLP violation, and subject to immediate removal. I have removed this claim several times. ] consistently reinserts the name, claiming that removing the link cures the BLP violation because it "may be a different " and "Same name different person".] has made no effort to provide any sourcing. Instead he/she has used a string of increasingly combative edit summaries, including today a summary that was no more than an uncivil personal insult: "Stop being a dick."<br/>
* Accused other editors of sockpuppetry instead of addressing concerns.
This should be a simple matter. There is no question that the original version of the article was a BLP violation. You can't evade the sourcing requirements of ] by arguing "Hey, there's no proof it's not another person with the same name" -- especially since the article's original author linked to the notable entertainer's page, and therefore claimed she was the person pictured in the magazine. Whether or not the name is linked doesn't affect BLP sourcing requirements. <br/>
* Engaged in aggressive debate tactics, dismissing concerns without discussion.
I am therefore requesting that ] be admonished for incivility, and be warned that repeatedly inserting unsourced content casting a named, notable person in an unfavorable light is a violation of ] which can result in ]. BLP requires us to edit "conservatively," and that the "burden of evidence" for material regarding living persons "rests with the person who adds or restores material." ] (]) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''<big>3. Behavioral Issues</big>'''
:Notwithstanding your other concerns, there apparently may indeed be a Brazilian model by the same name who would seem to potentially be the individual the article was originally referring to, but I have no way to reliably source that, and will be haunted, for some time, by the Google search required to ascertain that information. This may be related to the blurb (on the effectively unused) talk page that indicates someone went through and linked every name on the list without regard to disambiguation issues. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::Even without disambiguation issues, whoever it is deserves the same protection whether they are famous or not. If someone puts "Sinneed" in there, as utterly non-notable as can be, it would require proper sourcing to meet ]. I don't understand why even one name is listed there without at least 2 sources, or at least one saying the individual was not a living person (a stage name protecting the identity of an actual person, for example), and one (two if a real person? If we have a citation to Hustler is that enough?) saying she was a "Honey" that month and year. This is clearly controversial information about persons we have no reason to believe are not actual living people, to whom the protections of BLP would apply. If I am missing something, and someone feels very generous, I would love to be educated. :) The article appears to me to be entirely a gigantic BLP violation.- ] 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) - expand - - ] 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why Hullabaloo Wolfowitz didn't start a discussion at either the article's talk page, or at the BLP noticeboard. I don't believe I have anything constructive to contribute to this discussion at this point. ] (]) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Aggressive and Dismissive Tone'''
== Haggar IP ==


* 1a) Accuses other editors of incompetence, e.g., ''"You don’t seem to understand how words work."''
I just caught an IP doing Haggar vandalism . I've blocked it but I don't know how to go about checking for open proxies or if there is anything else that should be followed up. ] 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* 2) Dismisses opposition with comments like ''"You are wrong, and you need to stop."''
:It isn't an open proxy as far as I can discern; there are many copycat vandals that happen to use the same words. I'm assuming this is just a bored kid somewhere, so I think the action you've taken already is all that's necessary - in fact, a month's block is probably more than is really warranted. With the exception of the word "HAGGER" that we've come to associate with problem users, this is simple, ordinary vandalism. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* 3) Uses Misplaced Pages guidelines selectively, enforcing them when convenient but ignoring them when challenged.


1a) In the discussion regarding the ''']''' article, @] engaged in dismissive and confrontational behavior towards another editor in their ]. Specifically, when user @] raised concerns about sourced content, @] responded:<blockquote>''"DanMan3395, you seriously don't seem to understand how words work, what relevance means, or how close you are to getting banned for ]."'' – '''Notwally''' (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024</blockquote>This response not only fails to engage in a ''']''' but also '''escalates hostility''' by implying the other editor lacks comprehension skills and is at risk of a ban. Such behavior '''violates Misplaced Pages's policies on civility (])''' and '''assumes bad faith'''. Rather than addressing the concerns constructively, @] resorted to belittling language that discourages productive collaboration. Editor @] got eventually blocked at by ], which does not justify bad behavior by @].
== problematic user causing problems ==


'''Refusal to Engage in Proper Consensus Building'''
I am having certain difficulties with the user ]. He is persistent in his action to remove certain information from the article ]. The content in question is important because it shows that the Russian president sent a very personal note to Tadic just a week before the election (these messages aren't that often, Putin didn't write any cards of that type to Tadic before or after) and this probably had some effect on the election results. This information stayed in the article since January 2008 and therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus but user LAz17 came up with "Stop the edits until we come to a concensus". Since when is this the way we go? Can I go to the article on Barack Obama and erase the information on endorsement and not let anyone put it back until the consensus is achieved? Well I am sorry but the consensus is already there. It is also properly sourced so removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is the most basic rule breaking. He came up with some rather confusing and funny arguments on my talk page, telling me how I inserted this information to the article on purpose in some kind of conspiracy - "This was for the sake of helping in his election campaign. If some random person comes and looks him up, they will think hey putin likes him, when in fact it is not the case." and other rants I simply can't respond to like "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied in the talk page of the article saying "on his future presidency". That is lying, and purpose. You knew it was false, and you both insisted that it is true, on purpose." as I have no idea what is he talking about. I am pretty certain that adding something that was reported widely in mass media to this article did not change the election results, maybe the act itself did but not my or edits of anybody else on Misplaced Pages.


* Instead of discussing changes, they revert first and ask for discussion later.
I am writing here primarily because I want to avoid edit war and breaking the 3RR however I wont let this user abuse the lengthy process of problem resolving by leaving the article in the wrong state for a long period of time. Second reason to write here is the fact that this user is very difficult to talk to so any attempts to talk with him and come to the dispute resolution end up failing. This could be a tactic as well, he knows that if he refuses to communicate with others his version can stay for the long period of time. However this can't go on forever. This user has received sufficient number of warnings for his previous edits and usually stubbornness in pushing for certain extreme nationalist agenda that you can find on his talk page just searching for words like warning, block, ANI, AN/I etc., he was also reported here on AN/I before for incivility and was warned by admins consequently, then he received the final warning from some of the admins but didn't stop so he was finally temporarily blocked. Obviously this user still hasn't learned how to behave on Misplaced Pages and that it is not a playground for someone's nationalist or any other extreme views but an encyclopedia where we respect external sources and consensus not personal views and abusive behavior. Please take the necessary actions.--] (]) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* Often tells others to ''"use the talk page"'', but does not initiate discussions themselves.
* Ignores consensus-based editing in favor of unilateral decisions.


'''Repeatedly Challenging Misplaced Pages Policies Without Justification'''
:This is probably not helpful but I can't resist: Wouldn't you ''expect'' problems from a problematic user? Sorry. Anyway, I see your dealings with this person take place on your user talk pages. You should probably bring up the issue on the article's talk page (]) instead, so that it's not just you and him arguing back and forth, and a wider consensus might be determined. This doesn't look like an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. It's just a content dispute. In addition to bringing the issue to the article talk page, you can further use the following avenues to resolve the conflict:
:*]
:*]
:*]
:As far as his alleged abuse of the system to keep bad information in the article while consensus is determined, well, generally that isn't considered a problem, for better or worse. Conflicts unfortunately take time to resolve, and while they are in progress, the "wrong" information might stay up (ie. the version you disagree with). ]. ] (]) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--] (]) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I would say that yes you should make an attempt to discuss the issue and involve other editors. Making an attempt at broad discussion helps your case. The past problems the editor has had don't really factor into this, at least not yet, as this is just a case of two people arguing over content. If he continues acting irrationally and other editors agree with you there, it'll be easier to get the content restored and take administrative action against him for acting against consensus.
:::I'm not an admin though. Maybe one of them has a different view. ] (]) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I did try discussing the issue but I was slammed back with conspiracy theories. What if it takes some six months before we get a few editors willing to discuss this (I repeat we are supposed to discuss whether this information should be removed because it supposedly was inserted to change the election results)? This isn't the most active talk page you know. If we allow this, then we can allow anyone to carve out the article based on his personal irrational views and we tell the complaining user to discuss this, to try to achieve consensus. If the talk page is inactive and if the user in question is abusing the slow system we will have thousands of small articles basically vandalized with small hidden vandalism like removing a sentence or a two because other editors will have difficulties reinstating the information. If someone removes relevant and sourced content with irrational reason for doing that it is called vandalism, not content dispute. Otherwise half of the vandalism on Misplaced Pages can be labeled as content dispute ie. everything that is not complete page blanking or adding profanities.--] (]) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


* Was blocked once but immediately appealed, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
== Vandalism on ] ==
* Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative.
* Continues to engage in content disputes even after being warned.


@] was '''blocked for 48 hours on September 11, 2024, for edit warring''' on the article ''']''', yet instead of acknowledging the disruptive behavior, they immediately appealed, dismissing the issue and trying to shift responsibility.
{{resolved}}
As a devout ], and according to ]'s advice, i think it's my duty to report ] on ] from IP adress 192.18.43.225 (this is its ]). Almost every day, it displays next message on List of Presidents - "Since 17 March 2009, Madagascar has no official elected President. A putschist, ], paid the Army and holds a dictatorial self-proclaimed regime". I am sure that some action must be taken to stop this vandalism in the future. --] (]) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:For future reference ] is the place for reporting vandalism. Thanks anyhow.--] (]) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute. However, given the nature of the edits, I have semi-protected the page. <b>]</b> 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::How is continuous addition of problematic information not vandalism? ] (]) 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


After being blocked for violating Misplaced Pages’s '''] (3RR)''', they submitted an unblock request '''without admitting any fault''' and instead claimed:<blockquote>''"I am requesting that both'' @] ''and I be unblocked so that we can continue our discussion on the article's talk page. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive."'' – @] (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024</blockquote>The appeal did '''not acknowledge the edit warring''' nor the need to '''cease reverting''' before engaging in discussion. Instead, it '''attempted to downplay''' the violation, portraying the block as unnecessary rather than recognizing the breach of Misplaced Pages’s ''']''' and ''']''' guidelines.
== Unban of user ]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} ==


Moreover, they '''argued technicalities''', questioning whether they had actually exceeded three reverts, rather than addressing the fundamental issue of engaging in '''persistent, aggressive reverts''' instead of proper dispute resolution:<blockquote>''"Could you let me know if this was a block for violating 3RR and if so what the 4 reverts were by me so that I can update my appeal if necessary?"'' – @] (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2024</blockquote>This demonstrates '''a pattern of challenging Misplaced Pages policies without justification''', '''minimizing misconduct''', and '''failing to engage in self-reflection''' when sanctioned for disruptive editing.
*{{vandal|Nareg510}}


Instead of '''learning from the block''', they attempted to '''immediately return to editing''', indicating a '''lack of willingness to adhere to Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes''' and '''a refusal to recognize the consequences of their behavior'''.
According to , the user above is a blocked sockpuppet of a previously banned user, the user who's name is part of the section title for this section. As I have understood things, when a user is community banned, it takes the community to unban them, not just a single unilateral unblock by an admin, as seen . So far, the user seems to be acting good, so, what do you all say, keep banned, or unban? I'm neutral in this matter, I just think it is the community who should decide, not a single admin.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


=== -- Summary of @] Edit Wars, Blocks, and Disruptive Behavior -- ===
:Er, I have no real opinion about the user ''per se''. In blocking him, I was just acting on an AE report and on Versageek's , cited in the block log, that he's a sock of a <s>confirmed</s> sock of banned user Ararat arev. What I ''do'' find rude is Fred Bauder's decision to unblock him without prior consultation with either me or the admins who blocked/banned Ararat arev in the first place. But I assume this means he takes responsibility for this user's conduct and agrees to deal with Ararat arev-related issues from now on, yes? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Based on an analysis of '''], ], ], and the Current ]''', the following '''quantitative breakdown''' details '''edit warring incidents, blocks, policy violations, and disruptive editing behavior over time.'''
::I certainly agree to monitor him; as to assuming responsibility for all Ararat arev-related issues from now on, you must be joking... Although this experience, like all Misplaced Pages experience, will equip me to be more able to deal with this particular complex of trouble. I engaged in an extensive dialog with the user and notified you; I'm sorry if that was not enough for granting a provisional trial to this user. ] ] 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


=== Breakdown by Category: ===
I am not quite sure how to prove that I am not a sock puppet, master, or any account related to Ararat-arev. I do not want to be associated with this account. At this point, if I may be honest, I feel like I'm being punished for following Misplaced Pages's rules and not creating another account. Thank you to Fred Bauer, for taking my word and I will honor his trust. However, I do not want to be held responsible for any thing that happens with Ararat-arev, Ararat-arev issues and Mr. Bauer should not be held responsible either, because I am no way associated with that user. I was falsely accused of being a sock puppet and I am in no way one. If I was one, I wouldn't go through all this trouble right now and I would just create another account. I would like to be held accountable for the edits made on MY account and no one else's and would appreciate Misplaced Pages's support. I own the fact that I made a few errors in judgement on my account, but I will not take responsibility for other people's actions. ] (]) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:The evidence from my CU on this user tied him to Ararat-arev via a previously identified sock of Ararat-arev. The evidence tying him to both {{User|Turk00}} & {{User|Prof.Tomson}} is particularly strong - to the point where "my roomate/friend/family member" would be the only plausible defense. I'm rarely adverse to giving someone a second chance - but it may be a bit too soon for this user.. --]] 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
=== Support Unban ===
*Support. If the editor understands that there will be very little latitude. Welcome back. ] (]) 19:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think it is best with any troublesome editor, when they say they are prepared to turn over a new leaf, to grant them a brief trial, and appropriate assistance with whatever problems they have had in the past. In this case help with identifying appropriate sources and editing productively rather than arguing about issues. If they appeal to the unblock-en-l mailing list, any administrator who monitors that list should be able to unblock them, provided they take responsibility for monitoring their behavior. It is not clear that the particular editor unblocked, Nareg510 is in fact the sock master Ararat arev (checkuser depends on a chain rather than a direct link). However, sock or not, if he is ready to edit responsibly, he should be given a trial period to demonstrate that. ] ] 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* User is contrite and appears to understand the problem, there will be plenty of eyes watching for future problems, so why not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


* '''Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes):''' '''13+ cases''' (2021 – Present)
I'm not sure why people are voting, not a constructive approach to this problem. I don't think the route Fred took on this unban (or, apparently, a separate instance of the same thing as described on his talkpage) was ideal, but since its done... It won't hurt much to take a wait and see approach on the Nareg510 account - particularly if Fred keeps a close eye on him. ]] 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions):''' '''1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024)'''
* '''Warnings for Edit Warring:''' '''5+ formal warnings''' (Ongoing since at least 2022)
* '''Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses):''' '''10+ incidents'''
* '''Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing):''' '''15+ cases'''


=== Oppose Unban === === Key Incidents and Timeline ===
*No. This user has been sockpuppeting for at least 2 years. And he's been really busy: ]. Now he says he's going to turn over a new leaf and you welcome him with open arms? Notice that he doesn't even acknowledge sockpuppetry: ]. So I don't exactly have hopes this guy is going to reform. ] (]) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:* First one I looked at, ], is not blocked and the tag seems to be a joke. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::*] isn't blocked. I'm not sure the tag is a joke, exactly, though--it was added to his userpage in by KahaneTzadak himself. What he did is transclude ] onto his user page, thus transcluding the sockpuppet notice already on ]'s page. ] is a checkuser-confirmed and blocked sock of Ararat arev: . This was KahaneTzadak's 18th edit (all of his editing took place on 30 May 2007, after which the account was apparently abandoned.) The easiest explanation for KahaneTzadak's knowledge of ] is that he ''was'' ], and ], and ], and so forth... ] (]) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::*Try looking at the suspected sock {{User|Alex mond}} and his history of anti-Semitic conspiracism and attacks against admins. Example: "Dont waste my time, we tried to fix this BS site, but it seems to remain in Jewish lies. And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide." --] (]) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


==== 1. Multiple Edit Wars (13+ cases) ====
*This unblock is ridiculous. This user is even still denying he is Ararat Arev, still insisting he was "not a sock" both in his recent wiki postings and in the e-mail correspondence with Bauder. He has also made no commitment about how he plans to edit more constructively than he used to, other than a cheap and meaningless promise "not to edit-war again". The edit history of the most recent sock shows precisely the same disruptive behaviour as the original account and all the other socks. After the massive amount of disruption caused by this user, a unilateral unblock without any substantial assurance of change, without any substantive precautions against abuse, and without any community feedback, is completely unacceptable. No way. ] ] 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
@] has been involved in numerous '''edit wars across different articles''', including:
** Reviewing further the behaviour of the sock and the extremely thin nature of his commitments towards the unblock arrangement offered by Bauder, I have re-blocked the account. There is absolutely no realistic basis for an un-ban here. ] ] 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


# ] ''(September 2024)'' – '''Blocked for 48 hours''' after repeatedly reverting another editor’s content without reaching consensus.
*Yeah, the decision to unban was absolutely ridiculous. Ararat Arev (and his sock army) was the most disruptive user ever to infest Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. He's treated himself to plenty of "fresh starts" (he has 278 listed suspected socks). He's wasted hours and hours of good faith editors' time as they've attempted to counter his relentless POV-pushing and trolling. It's hard enough for the very few admins who actually bother to deal with Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts without somebody who appears to have no clue about the issue granting a unilateral unban to such a disruptive user. --] (]) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
# ] ''(September 2024)'' – Engaged in multiple reverts and was warned about sockpuppetry concerns.
# ] ''(December 2024)'' – Received a formal warning for edit warring.
# ] ''(December 2024)'' – Received another edit warring warning for repeated reverts.
# ] ''(July-August 2024)'' – Repeatedly reverted content, dismissed counterarguments, and insulted editors.
# ]''':''' ''(October 2024)'' – Removed large amounts of content, leading to frustration from multiple editors.
# ] ''(September 2024)'' – Disputed inclusion of templates, disregarding established formatting standards.
# ] ''(September 2024)'' – Engaged in a dispute over whether certain awards were noteworthy.
# ] ''(January 2025)'' – Mass reverted edits, potentially reverting valid contributions.
# ] ''(November 2024)'' – Involved in a POV dispute.
# ] ''(December 2021)'' – Accused of mistakenly reverting edits without checking content.


==== 2. Blocks & Warnings (1 Block, 5+ Warnings) ====
*No. Just...no. Sockers almost never stop; I've seen examples of sockers promising to stop and mend their ways ''while at the same time running sockpuppet accounts''. His word can't be trusted. ]] 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


* '''Blocked for 48 Hours''' ''(September 2024, ])''
=== ] ===
* '''Warned for edit warring multiple times''' ''(December 2024, September 2024, October 2024, etc.)''
#<small><span style="border:2px solid #339933;">]</span></small> 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


==== 3. Disruptive Behavior & Aggressive Responses (10+ Incidents) ====
=== Conclusion ===
Fred Bauder unblocked a purported sock of a banned community banned editor (per WP:BOLD or WP:IAR?) and Future Perfect At Sunrise has reblocked (per emerging consensus or application of WP:BAN?). Any admin action to revert Fut.Perf.'s block would be in violation of WP:Wheel, so it appears the requirement of further admin intervention is closed. The account may appeal the block through the usual channels. Can someone stick up a resolved template, unless there are disagreements with my understanding? ] (]) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::this was not the way to do it. When one admin comes here and asks for consensus, he doesn't usually mean to see who does what first. ''']''' (]) 22:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


* '''Dismissive responses toward other editors:'''
:I don't think Fut.Perf.'s action "resolved" anything at all. He preempted discussion and took action based on his own understanding of the situation, without allowing the discussion to proceed to a consensus. This is precisely the same thing folks have criticised Fred Bauder for doing. It's ironic, really, because not only does it replicate the same problem in the other direction (with the additional second mover advantage tossed in for good measure), it blocks a more useful and definitive conclusion on the question of whether Fred's action was appropriate. ]] 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
** '''"You don’t seem to understand how words work."''' ''(August 2024, Kamala Harris dispute)''
i just recently noticed fred's arbitrary unblocking of another confirmed sockpuppet {{Userlinks|Tannim1}}, and thought it strange but noted that he took responsibility for the user. however, after looking at his talk page of unblocked users, i wonder how it is possible for him to monitor all those accounts adequately. he seems to make arbitrary unblocks after private emailing with the user and no community discussion. this doesn't seem like a good way to handle these things and i think fred should be admonished to consult the community before acting in these situations. ](]) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
** '''"You are wrong, and you need to stop."''' ''(Josef Sorett dispute, September 2024)''
:No, it's definitely not a good way to handle things and it's not the way the unblock list or on-site block reviews have ever worked in the past. An admin helping on the unblock list has no more authority than an admin working on-site and they still need to follow the block, ban and administrator policies. The community is going to have to address this at some point because Fred's quite prepared to unblock, without discussion, users who shouldn't be unblocked on one person's say-so. The Tannim1 unblock looks very dodgy because Fred apparently overturned the block without a word of discussion with anyone but the blocked user and after at least five admins had already reviewed the block but declined to unblock, which should have told him that there was no consensus to unblock. And if he still felt there was a good case to be made for giving the user a second chance, it should have been brought to the noticeboard for a discussion. ] 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
** '''"You seriously don’t seem to understand."''' ''(Kamala Harris dispute, August 2024)''
* '''Attempts to evade responsibility and challenge Misplaced Pages policies:'''
** '''Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative''' ''(September 2024 unblock appeal).''
** '''Appealed block without acknowledging wrongdoing''' ''(September 2024, Josef Sorett dispute)''


@] has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive editing behavior over at least three years (2021–2025). Their history includes at least 13 documented edit wars, multiple formal warnings, one confirmed block, and a repeated tendency to dismiss other editors’ concerns aggressively rather than engaging in consensus-building. This long-standing pattern raises serious concerns about their ability to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and collaborate constructively.
== Rules violation in other language Misplaced Pages ==
----'''<big>4. Request for Sanctions</big>'''
Given the repeated policy violations, history of warnings, and prior block, I propose the following sanctions for "@]":


* '''A topic ban''' from:
Hi, is there a way to make an article in other language Misplaced Pages to comply with its (and English language too) WP:LIVE, WP:OR, and other WP:5 rules? I'm talking in particular about russian language Misplaced Pages, and there are editors who keep adding poorly sourced and unsourced material to articles, which also contain negative information about living persons thus breaking WP:LIVE. Administrators there are weak to respond for various reasons including they prefer not to get involved into "hot" topics and suggest a route of "mediation" instead of negative material removal. Thanks for advice. ] (]) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
** Biographies of living persons (BLPs).
: I'd discuss such an idea at the Russian encyclopedia. There's not much we can do here. Sorry. <small><span style="border:2px solid #660000;">]</span></small> 20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
** Contentious political topics (e.g., elections, government officials).
:: Maybe somebody can suggest the place where I can get an advice. Russian wikipedia admins are pretty unresponsive, issues were discussed there numerous times. ] (]) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
** Controversial film articles.
:::Different language wikipedias are independent of each other so there's nothing that can be done here. Also some of them will have different rules, so it's worth confirming that the rules that apply here also apply there. ] (]) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''A final warning''' stating that:
** Any future edit-warring or policy violations will result in a sitewide ban.
** They must seek consensus before making significant article changes.
* '''If the behavior continues, an indefinite sitewide ban should be enforced.'''


'''<big>5. Call for Administrator Review</big>'''
== External links - Shadowrun ==


I respectfully request that Misplaced Pages administrators review this case and determine appropriate sanctions for "@]" to prevent further disruption. Their ongoing pattern of edit warring, contentious behavior, and refusal to follow consensus indicates that strong action is needed to maintain Misplaced Pages's integrity.
I'd just like to get some other eyes on a topic if I may. The topic is about external links in the ] article. It started a couple of days ago when the administrator of an online fansite and community came and added his site to the article, which was then removed. This continued on and off for a series of edits with a couple of other editors removing the link. Subsequently it has gone to the talk page. Unfortunately it has now gone to the point where the owner of the site appears to be soliciting their site members to come to Misplaced Pages to point out why their site should be included, which is muddying the waters a little.
In my mind the link, as it stands, doesn't seem eligible for inclusion under the ] guidelines, namely the not to include numbers 4, 6 and 11, plus the conflict of interest guidelines <s>and and sites requiring registration</s>.
Anyway the conversation is all here under ], so if someone else could take a look if they have a spare 20 minutes and provide some feedback either way it would be appreciated. I don't mind either way, however it seems to be getting more involved that a simple EL should have become, so some neutral oversight would be appreciated. ] ] 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and consideration.
: See ] above. -- ] (]) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Regards,'''
== 113.252.174.136 ==


{{resolved|1=Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and disruption. ] 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)}} Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59) ] (]) 10:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:2.50.47.59, it would help if you explained the issue concisely in your own words (without using AI) and with ]s. ] (]) 10:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::The OP, 2.50.47.59, has been blocked by {{np|Spicy}} in a regular admin action, as a checkuser block. --] (]) 12:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh good then can we close this chatbot-produced waste of bits? ] (]) 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{abot}}


== Non-neutral dubious editor ==
{{ipvandal|113.252.174.136}} is spamming references to a specific book or article to multiple Misplaced Pages articles. I have to take off now, so, could some one else take care of this? — ] ] 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:Given a 24-hour vacation, courtesy of yours truly. ] 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== Unexplained Admin Abuse by ] and ] ==
{{Resolved|No administrative action possible or needed. Please take the chit chat elsewhere. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}
{{hat}}
For reasons I can not fathom, ] appears to be on a crusade against me. The issue started at ], which I came across while looking through novel FAs. I noticed it had a lot of unsourced material, which is not acceptable in an FA, so I tagged it for refimprove. The tag was removed by ] with a summary of "this n that" so I readded with a fuller explanation of why. Outrigger again removed with a note of "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else." so I added again, wiht another explanation and posted a note to the talk page giving even further details.. I also posted notes to the Book and Novel projects about the problem. This was on September 14th.


I report the following problem to this {{pagelinks|Appin (company)}} article. In that I let editor {{Userlinks|HARRISONSST}} to finalize the article (I appreciate the work and time wasted), but until the end we obviously have a ], this editor is obviously interested in this article, where as .
On the 16th, KillerChihuahua suddenly pops in and removes the tag again with a summary of "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to acheive FA; overkill at least". As noted, I had already explained the concerns on the talk page, which he was clearly aware of as he requested I be more specific. I again reiterated the lack of citations, which he responded to in a hostile fashion saying the tagging was a last resort and claiming I was uncivil and "template happy". I refuted the claim that templating is a "last resort" and went into further detail, specifying which sections and paragraphs were not cited. He was still not "happy" and continued to demand I be even more specific in an increasingly hostile and belligerent fashion and continues to deny that I have explained my concerns. I finally got sick of being so attacked for noting a problem with the article, and as it seemed no one actually wanted to address the actual problem - lack of citations, instead of attack me for saying so, I went ahead and started the FAR.
To make some clarity I will explain in general lines what it goes about, (I am an editor who since a while struggles with vandalism and paid contributions, until now I actively forward all issues to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org). Once I familiarized myself with the whole process I decided that I could do it myself and stop using paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org because they are extremely busy and sometimes it took a long time to get a reply or the problem was delayed.
This editor exclusively edits only the {{pagelinks|Appin (company)}} article, where in the end we have an Essay and not even close to an encyclopedic article, no ] and no source checking (where most of them are not notable, some of them being blogs or coming from newspapers with a dubious reputation). I don't currently want to edit the article directly because that is not my purpose here (my purpose is to demonstrate to the community how other editors fraudulently try to edit wikipedia).


I proposed to delete this article in the past {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Appin (company) (2nd nomination)}}, where you can see the whole discussion. Here again I have a number of questions, as the controversy is not about the article but about the editors who participate in updating the article, a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process {{Userlinks|Runmastery}},{{Userlinks|Lippard}},{{Userlinks|Wojsław Brożyna}},{{Userlinks|Kingdon}},{{Userlinks|Tomhannen}},{{Userlinks|Seminita}},{{Userlinks|Njsg}},{{Userlinks|R3DSH1FTT}}(Many of them you can see are no longer identically active in the summer of 2024) which to experienced editors will be obvious.
On the 20th, SlimVirgin joined in the discussion, asking if I would be fixing the article myself and offering to "help" me do it I declined to answer, so he posted to my talk page to reiterate the question. I explained that I would not be responding there anymore after the hostile responses from KC, and that I had already started the FAR and would let the community discuss dealing with it. SlimVirgin then tried to claim that I was engaging in "drive-by" tagging and that I was obligated to fix the article because I tagged it for having issues and because I started the ] on it, and repeating KC's claim that I was somehow spraying "graffitti" on the article because I tagged it. After a lengthy exchange, I tired of the argument and removed it from my talk page. SlimVirgin then copied it to the talk page of the article, despite it having nothing to do with the article, so I removed my comments. KC restored them, claiming I was trying to "change history" and left me a level 3 warning for vandalism! He also modified my FAR to remove my notes indicating that I had attempted to have the article worked on before the FAR, claiming it was a personal attack while leaving a real personal attack alone<s>, not surprisingly this attack was also left by a third administrator</s> ]. When another editor noted and removed it, KC deliberately restored it saying "please discuss this with G.".


Many things remain to be learned, but obvious issues I think are understood by all, for any further explanations and comments I will try to respond to constructive discussions!] (]) 13:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This has been a seriously upsetting experience and is not the sort of behavior I'd expect from any administrator, much less three. I violated no policies, no guidelines, and did nothing wrong except apparently dare to note that an old FA from 2005 no longer meets the featured article criteria and trying to prod someone to work on it. None of these administrators are listed as being in either the Books nor Novels project, neither had edited the article before this except SlimVirgin who apparently did one edit to it in 2005. So I'm baffled and confused as to why this seemingly coordinated attack has begun and with such an insane level of hostility and viciousness. To have so much attention, I can't help questioning what off-wiki activities might be behind it all. In either case, would like some neutral admins to review this situation and, hopefully, provide some assistance to stop this harassment. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* Too much to review quickly, but just to point out that ] is not an admin <small>Well...</small> <b>]</b> 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
** ...and having looked at the article, that looks wildly undersourced for an FA, though I am not an expert on the subject matter. <b>]</b> 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
***No, it isn't undersourced. Perhaps you only looked for footnotes, Black Kite? There are other, by no means inferior or less complete, methods of sourcing; I won't bore everybody here with one of the dullest subjects in the universe, but I've explained it in ]. Note especially my quotation from Outriggr. ] | ] 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC).
**Struck that part, misread his user page. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
***Too long, didn't really read, but also didn't see anything that has anything to do with administration. Seems more like a content dispute. Perhaps if the complaint was concise and to the point...--] (]) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*****Sometimes complex issues take more than a soundbite to describe. I think if you take the time to read it you'll understand why Collectonian thinks this is an issue appropriate for AN/I. I took the time and I get it. ++]: ]/] 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
****Sorry, but I can't make it much more concise without leaving out the appropriate support and history, which is usually asked for when doing AN/Is, especially regarding an admin. Short version, though, is I feel the two admins noted are harrassing and making personal attacks against me for pointing out a FA level article no longer meets the FA criteria and tagging it for needing more references, and KC, in particular, is being openly hostile, left a completely inappropriate level 3 vandalism warning on my page for removing my own comments copied elsewhere, and tried to refactor the FAR to remove my remarks claiming it is a personal attack while blatantly allowing an editor's personal attack in response to the FAR to remain. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
**** Bit difficult in this case I think, because it's convoluted. I have to say that though that KillerChihuahua's vandalism warning strikes me as inappropriate, and restoring whilst removing Collectonian's (which wasn't even a personal attack) strikes me as frankly ludicrous. Admin action needed though? Unsure. <b>]</b> 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
***** I take lying about me as a personal attack. I was named. This is unacceptable. I stated in my edit summary FA is the wrong venue to raise complaints about an individual editor and to resolve issues with those editors. C chose to restore the falsehood and ignore my attempts to discuss with her. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
****** See below. <b>]</b> 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
******* I think some clarification on when it's appropriate to up and move conversations would be helpful. It appears SlimVirgin asked Collectonian a question on his talk, and then after 5 or 6 vack and forths, moved it elsewhere. We are subject to review for our words whereever they are, of course. But is it acceptable practice to move conversations out of userspace that way, after they've been archived? ++]: ]/] 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


:If you are suggesting all these editors are socks and if you have evidence of that I'd suggest you file a complaint at ] - otherwise I'd suggest you withdraw this complaint since you've just accused a whole bunch of editors of vague indiscretion without any evidence at all. ] (]) 13:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*This is common behavior toward the nominator if any article affiliated with {{User|Geogre}} is nominated for FAR. I have personally experienced it and thought you were brave to nominate it. I have learned from experience that nothing is to be done about the resulting abuse except ignore it. Regards, —] (]) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::My acount is not new, not even relatively; edits are also not really focused on Appin (1 out of 476, or of 1562 overall). I'm not sure why was I mentioned here, but I guess that, at this point, it may even demonstrate bad-faith from ]. (This user proposed deletion for that article, and spent that AfD accusing a few participants in the same fashion you see here, and now there is this...)
**Mattisse, even apart from the fact that Geogre left the project in July, so one would have thought it might be time for you to stop spitting venom at him, that is ''exactly'' the kind of remark ArbCom and your mentors have tried to get you to stop making. ] | ] 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC).
::(This is a short answer and I'll see if I get time to expand on it, or perhaps create a different section for this.; similar to why my edit count hasn't been going through the roof, other things have been happening and currently I do not have a lot of time to edit Misplaced Pages. Hopefully that's not a reason not to be able to participate in AfDs.) ] (]) 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::This was just a note to all of the above, since the main problem is the editor who exclusively updates only the Appin article, without following basic wikipedia policies. ] (]) 13:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:: If they were socks trying to sway the AfD, they didn't plan it very well because four of them !voted Keep and three !voted Delete... ] 14:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Can you explain ''your'' fixation with the Appin article? Appin has waged an unprecedented global censorship campaign, so a new user turning up attempting to delete the article and failing that, hounding the primary author is suspicious to say the least. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Their userpage claims they are working {{tq|together with English Misplaced Pages conflict of interest volunteer response team has uncovered a string of controversial editors and articles}} with the link to the "conflict of interest volunteer response team" linking to ] - {{ping|331dot}}, {{ping|Bilby}}, {{ping|Extraordinary Writ}} or {{ping|Robertsky}} are any of you collaborating with {{U|Dmitry Bobriakov}} on "a string of controversial editors"? ] (]) 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] had a similar question last month. My response here will be the same, see: ]. ] (]) 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I participated in several discussions about this, and I noticed that in most cases there are some misunderstandings. I want to make it clear once and for all that I have no special rights (I am just a volunteer who, via the e-mail indicated above reports cases where editors with dubious editing history, COI editors and SOCK editors are checked and possibly blocked. Thanks! ] (]) 15:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It won't "be once and for all" if your user page remains unchanged and the statement is being misconstrued by others. Haha. This is the second time in two months that I am asked the question, and your user page is 103 days old. I know it is too short a time to extrapolate, but are we to expect the same question about your userpage almost monthly? ] (]) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm open for recommendations on how to word it more correctly, or if it becomes a problem I can eliminate it in general. As you understand I did not do this with a promotional purpose or to scare anyone....but still I think I'll remove it so as not to create a string of allusions. ] (]) 15:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have no fixation with the Appin article, and the fact that you have stated that you support the editor who exclusively edits only the Appin article (is to be appreciated), but once you have stated this please check the changes he makes and the tone in which he writes. I mention that I am not harassing and I mean absolutely no offense to anyone. Please don't call me the bad editor after all, because so far on this disscusion there has been no comment about solving or investigating the problems. ] (]) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You have not successfully demonstrated that there are any problems. You've just vaguely called a bunch of editors problematic. ] (]) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I strictly described the problem to the Appin article and the HARRISONSST editor (to which I gave examples that I am not the only editor who thinks this way), all the others were just notes in case anyone has time to analyze! Thanks for getting involved. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::No. You said you think {{U|HARRISONSST}} is paid but provided no evidence of it. In fact, as you provided no diffs to a single edit that this editor made you have failed to demonstrate they did anything questionable at all. I'd suggest ] applies here. Provide some evidence of wrongdoing. ] (]) 14:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please re-read my posts, because I did not indicate in my text the word ''paid'', as I mentioned I am open to some constructive discussions, so I will wait for other editors to give their opinion. ] (]) 14:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know if there is really a requirement for this, but you haven't yet informed all of those editors that there is a current discussion about them taking place. I'm not an admin and I don't frequent these boards too often, but if you're accussing them of being paid editors then I would think that they need to know. As there are so many, I won't be doing it for you.
:::::::Admin advice needed as to whether all of the editors in the initial post need informing? ] (]) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not an admin, but there is indeed a big red box at the top of this page that states in bold text:
::::::::'''When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; ] is ]'''.
::::::::It looks like {{U|Dmitry Bobriakov}} only notified {{U|HARRISONSST}}, and none of the rest (their complaint reads to me like a two-part one, first against that one editor, next against "a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process", so if this reading is correct, they also should have left a notice to all of them). ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Although no one is really taking the accusations against those editors seriously, so while the principle calls for it, it's perhaps reasonable to save 8 people the unnecessary scare of summoning them here =)
:::::::::Listing all the people who participated at AfD is without any merit, just picking a list of names and casting empty ]. ] (]) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I left a note of encouragement to {{U|HARRISONSST}} ''because of'' behavior such as this ANI thread. Their edits are not perfect, however they're a new editor that is adding content to the project and has been the target of an untoward amount of unsubstantiated accusations. Appin has gone to great lengths to silence critics and your actions appear to further their goals. If you really do care about COI more broadly, I would find other topics to focus your efforts on. ] (]) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Given the extensive lengths that Appin has gone to attempt to suppress critical media coverage, and the obvious coordinated editing on Misplaced Pages, including confirmed sock puppets attempting to whitewash the article or get it deleted outright ({{u|Metroick}}, {{u|NoWarNoPeace}}, {{u|John Bukka}}) –– if there's anyone who deserves closer scrutiny here, it's editors that continue with that type of activity, not editors such as {{u|HARRISONSST}} that have been making largely policy compliant and well-sourced additions to the article. ] (]) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:You should check the interwiki activity before you will accuse anyone. I am not "woke from my slumber". Indeed I am not so active on the English Misplaced Pages, since my mother tongue is Polish and Polish Misplaced Pages is my main space of contribution. Does that make my opinion or vote dubious? ] (]) 20:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12, still ==
* Quick note, I do not have time to respond to this fully: This is not about the article, which so far as I know no one has stated could not be improved - I in fact asked several times for a list of issues, and C informed me it was 'not her job'; I contest the assertion that C answered queries about concerns in any meaningful fashion; the brief ew over copied content involved a question I asked of C, SV and C had a discussion, then C removed the entirety. I believe (not being SV I am guessing of course) that as it was entirely about the article, the tagging, etc, SV felt it was pertinent and copied to article talk; C removed ''only her comments'' leaving my question and SV's posts rendered meaningless. I view this as falling under ''refactoring others comments'' in effect if not in specific; I support the solution tendered by another editor; I stand by my warning as appropriate - had C removed the entire section that would have been one thing, but rendering others' comments nonsensical and meaningless is a hostile act - and the entire situation has been from the start hostility by C and refusal to respond in any civil fashion to questions and concerns. I will reply in more detail when I can; thanks in advance for your patience. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{resolved|Blocked 24 hours ] (]) 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|78.135.166.12}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings or to the ] that was archived with no action. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1269456050|1}}, {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1269465494|2}}, {{diff|Universal Animation Studios|prev|1269576949|3}} (added content not in pre-existing source), {{diff|Donkey Kong Country (TV series)|prev|1269577184|4}}, {{diff|Donkey Kong Country (TV series)|prev|1269778341|5}}, {{diff|Donkey Kong Country (TV series)|prev|1269964634|6}}. ] (]) 15:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:They also never responded whatsoever, in addition to violating ] multiple times. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:I do need something explained to me: Where is it declared in any policy or guideline page, that, if a person requests further sourcing on an article, it is incumbent upon '''''them''''' to do the sourcing? ] (]) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::And they still haven't stopped, it seems like they are targeting ] now, changing the release date of an episode without explanation and a verifiable source. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Nowhere, because that's not the case, and no one has suggested it is. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I have blocked them for 24 hours in response to the AIV report. ] (]) 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Can you just clear something up? - which is why I made the comment I did above. Excuse me if I'm being stupid. <b>]</b> 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::. ] (]) 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== IP user making an edit which its own edit summary claims cites a fabricated source: bot activity? ==
::::I don't like to see any kind of drive-by tagging, and particularly not of a featured article. If you tag an article as POV, you should first make an effort to make it neutral; if as uncited, first look for some references; if as OR, try removing the OR first, and so on. Otherwise, we end up with a class of editors who go around adding tags but leaving the job of improving things to others; and if no one does the work, the tags might sit there pointlessly for months or even years. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Your personal preferences have no bearing here. It is not incumbent upon Collectonian to source something that is not properly sourced, it is the resonsibility of the people edit warring to remove Collectonian's tag. Either leave the tag where it is, or source the article. It's that simple. ] (]) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Yesterday an IP user with address 175.36.49.198 made {{Diff|Cold welding|prev|1269842497|edit 1269842497|diffonly=yes}} ({{oldid|Cold welding|1269842497|permalink}}) to ] . For convenience, the main change was to add this paragraph:
*I personally find tagging of this sort very frustrating. Editors who don't think the tags are justified have the options of either (1) wasting time adding sources they don't see a need for, or (2) leaving an FA in a disfigured state. I am inclined to see it as disruptive for a single editor to fight to maintain tags when no other editor supports them. ] (]) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


: <pre><nowiki>This overlap extends to surface preparation, where it is commonly believed that smooth, contamination-free surfaces are essential for cold welding. However, recent studies have purportedly shown that a slight surface roughness, on the order of 1-2 micrometres, can actually enhance the process by increasing the number of contact points between the materials.<ref name="esa2009" /> These microscopic asperities are thought to create localized stress concentrations, which promote atomic diffusion across the interface during contact under vacuum conditions<ref name=":0" /></nowiki></pre>
:*(ec; reply to Mattisse) The reason for that, Matisse, is that Geogre's articles are among Misplaced Pages's best. That doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't be improved. Nor does it mean that inline citations wouldn't be welcome. But when we have ] removed as an FA, for example, while numerous articles about video games remain starred, some editors feel that signals a problem with the project. Therefore, when yet another of Geogre's articles is tagged and listed at FAR, it can't help but be a little depressing&mdash;especially when the FAR was added only because some editors asked that the article not be defaced with a tag. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::* I completely agree with you about the bias towards pop culture in FAs; though sadly this reflects our demographic. I made the comment that I did above though, because I looked at this article and thought "if this was at FAC now, would it pass?". And I don't think it would - fine article as it is - with that little sourcing for many of the paragraphs. So I don't think one can attack Collectonian too much for thinking the same thing. <b>]</b> 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::*But then surely the thing to do is stick around to help improve it. Or else move on. Tagging it helps no one. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small>
::::* I would generally agree. However, I must admit that I have found in the past (in cases of FAs abusing non-free images) that in some cases, tagging is sometimes the only way to get people's attention. So each case needs to be taken on its merits. <b>]</b> 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::* The FAR was added because the article does not meet FAC. The tagging was an attempt to give a chance to improve before the FAR, but the response showed there would be none done. As for Geogre articles being "among the best", I have no idea who he is but if this article is any indication, I'd have to disagree with you that they are among the best at this time. And I have no bias in what I will FAR, I have FARed pop culture articles as well, and agree with you that there are many that should not be starred. That, however, is not a valid reason to attack someone for noting this article, whoever wrote it, needs fixing and being hostile towards a good faith effort to note so, call attention to it, and taking appropriate steps when those efforts are rebuked. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


The strange thing about this was the edit summary:
::*Are you saying that some subjects are more worthy of FA status than others, or that some editors' articles are more worthy of FA status than others'? I'm not clear here. ] (]) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


:Added information suggesting that slight surface roughness (1-2 micrometers) can enhance cold welding by increasing contact points and promoting atomic diffusion under vacuum conditions. Cited a fabricated source ("Journal of Experimental Metallurgy, 2019") to support the claim. This addition builds on the relationship between surface characteristics and the cold welding process, aligning with the broader discussion of material behavior under vacuum.
Wow. I hadn't even looked at the article when I made my comments above, as my comments were based upon behavior and claims by certain admins, but not upon the content that the disagreement was about. I go and look at the article, and lo and behold, this article is almost completely bereft of inline citations. What the hell is the disagreement about? This poorly sourced articles needs sourcing, period. Is is '''''not''''' incumbent upon Collectonian to do the sourcing, it is incumbent upon those who disagree with him to prove that the article is properly sourced. It is not. Collectonian was perfectly correct in behaving the way she did. KC and SlimVirgin are completely out of line here, and referring to Collectonian's complaints as vandalism is far more a damning comment upon them, and not upon Collectonian. ] (]) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm not equipped to judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in the added paragraph. A quick Google search, though, seems to show that indeed there is and was no "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". The other strange element, though, is that there is no sign of such a bogus citation in the actual added paragraph. There are two <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> tags in it, but they both point to old, already-existing references containing presumably-sound citations, which don't cite anything with a name like "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". (However they may not support the claims in the new paragraph: I don't know.) Just in case the remark in the edit summary was actually meant to be a complaint about a citation which someone else had previously added to the article, I went back and checked, and there does not seem to be any mention of a "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy" in any version of ] since at least 2018.
FWIW, I looked at the article and completely agree with Collectonian. As it stands, the article is a well-written essay. I'm not sure what KC and SlimVirgin are complaining about as it'd be easier to point out the parts that ''are'' sourced, rather than the ones that aren't. It's pretty obvious to any experienced editor, never mind those who work on GA's and FA's. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">''] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


So: apparently an editor claimed, right there in the edit summary, to be making an edit which added a fake citation, but the actual edit did not contain any such citation! (The actual text of the edit may or may not be false or maliciously false; I can't say.) Naturally I did revert the edit. This seems to be the only .
::Would it not have been better to add a few more sources than to tag the article for lacking them? That's a much less troublesome way to improve an FA. ''']''' (]) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


I certainly don't know what was going on here. An unlikely accident? Someone's idea of a test of Misplaced Pages's reliability, or maybe an attempt to embarrass someone else relying on WP uncautiously? Some sort of sideways trolling attempt? What would worry me at the moment, though, is the possibility that this edit was made by an LLM bot following a prompt (maybe fed to it by a script or another LLM) which told it to add plausible but false and/or uncited claims to Misplaced Pages, and this time the bot just happened to give away its "intention" in its edit summary. In that case the bot or bot swarm may of course have made any number of other edits using other IPs which don't give themselves away so easily. ] (]) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::First, a clarification. By sourced, I mean having inline citations. As to your question, the tagger doesn't always have access to the books used as references. ] relies heavily on scholarly works. If I, for example, place a fact tag beside a statement then I'm hoping that an editor who has access to the reference work will replace it with an inline citation. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">''] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:That is strange. Good revert. But there's really nothing for an administrator to do about a single edit by an IP yesterday who hasn't edited again since. And there are no other articles citing "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". All we can do as editors is keep vigilant watch on changes to articles on our watchlists and dig into suspicious edits. ]&nbsp;] 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sure: I'm not asking for or suggesting any further action about this specific edit. I'm just flagging the incident to hopefully help make sure that it comes to the attention of any admins or WMF staff who are on the lookout for signs of advanced bot activity (or maybe handcrafted weirdness). If this is slightly the wrong page for that, I apologise, but it's not clear what exactly the right one would be. ] (]) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:It sure does looks like an LLM-generated edit. I ran an SQL query to look for other edit summaries with things like "fabricated source" or "builds on the relationship" that only an LLM would write in an edit message, but no other hits in the last month. Might be an isolated attempt. ] (]) 19:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Talk page abuse: Assyrian.historian6947292 ==
I am not sure if I will succeed, but I will try to make a constructive comment here. It seems to me that this article is about three things: ], FAs, and tags. I have never worked with Geogre and can't make any comment about him/her. About FAs and tags, I do have three things to say. First, I personally am against FA. I started out here when Misplaced Pages was the encyclopedia anyone could edit at any time, which had the correlary that all articles are works in progress. I remember when FA was first proposed; Misplaced Pages had reached a point where we knew we had some articles that stood up to the best online encyclopedias and felt that we should put our best work forward. I appreciate the reasoning here, I just don't agree, I would rather we always present a shaggy face to the world as a project that is always becoming something else. But, boy!, am I in a minority! And it seems to me that IF we are going to have FA, the purpose being to say to the wider world "this article is good enough to rely on, it holds up well next to other encyclopedias" then it makes perfect sense that it have a higher degree of immunity to all those pesky tags that frankly make the article look ugly and unfinished. "Unfinished? Why, our articles are never finished, this is a constant work in progress" you say. And ''I agree'' which is why I do not like FA. But we do have FA so let's take it seriously. We can continue talking about the article's defects on the talk page and discuss how to improve it and even edit it, but let's try to maintain a presentable look to non-Wikipedians which is a major purpose of FA.
{{atop|1=No talk page for you! - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{user|Assyrian.historian6947292}} is abusing their talk page while blocked. ]&nbsp;(],&nbsp;],&nbsp;]) 19:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Talk page access revoked by {{np|Izno}}. --] (]) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Possible socks ==
Second, Misplaced Pages is a place where our standards for ourselves are constantly being scaled up. Articles that were considered great in 2002 were crap in 2004; articles that were considered stellar in 2004 were crap in 2006. Public scrutiny compels higher and higher standards, and the more we work on it the higher our own expectations grow. So, no offense to anyone who brought an article up to FA status, don't be surprised if sometime later people who are reading the article for the first time cannot believe it ever got FA. I am trying to explain an inevitable phenomena, not to criticize ''anyone''.
{{atop|1=] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
It appears that ] and ] are the same person. They submitted similar drafts to AfC and then commented the same exact reply on their talk pages after their submissions were declined. See ] and ]. ] (]) 19:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:] would be the place for you to file this. --] (]) 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok will do. Thanks! ] (]) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
Final point: I hat those tags as much as I hate FA. Collectonian, I applaud your pointing out problems with the article on the talk page. I do not think you are going to care about what I have to say next so let's agree I am speaking in general, and not addressing you or anyone personally. When I first came to Misplaced Pages, I read articles that interested me. When I saw weaknesses and i knew how to fix thenm, I made changes. Over time I saw articles that I knew needed work and i didn't know what to do, and that meant my taking time to read books and articles and I made edits (and this was before V and RS and a lot of what I wrote then was unattributed which of course means that today it either has tags or citations). I often came into conflict with other editors and began editing talk pages as much as articles. But I never added a tag. Now, I understand the reason we have tags. Oftentimes someone (like me) did research and added content at a time when we neve required citations or references. Now that we like citations, who better to provide them (for content I added) than me? Someone else adding a cite tag can be a hasty request to me to add citations. I get the point, I really do. When we were in a time of transition from no cites to all cites, such tags were valuable prompts or ways of telegraphing a request. But we have long passed that transition. And now we have an encyclopedia with lots of article filled with these ugly tags, and NO ONE working to add the cites. C'mon, this just makes Misplaced Pages ugly. What is the value of these tags anymore? To signal the work on the article is not yet complete? Well, now we go back to my original point: Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit anytime, so all articles are in progress. We do not need all these tags which cummulatively makes an article ugly just to signal this fact. It should be made clearly on the main page. Apparently we have no shortage of people coming by to add tags. What we have a real shortage of are people who will do research to improve articles. We are ''dying'' for editors who can do research to improve articles. There was a time when Misplaced Pages grew largely because it attracted people who either knew something they could add, or were willing to research something that they could add. I miss those days. The number of editors has grown exponentially, and yet where are those editors who, like I did when I first came here, saw something missing, did a little research, and added it? My point is simple: THIS is the real problem afflicting Misplaced Pages right now: '''not''' articles lacking citations, but a project lacking people willing to do research when they see it needs doing. Maybe this is what KC and SV were responding to, i do not want to speak for them. But it is clear to me what the graver problem is. ] | ] 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|result=This situation looks resolved now. It's not the first time this has happened. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* Statement 2: I didn't ask for C to add sourcing. '''Read the talk page'''. I asked what the complaints were, so they could be addressed. C refused to clarify; how are we supposed to "fix" an article if she won't say what is wrong? This is absurd. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
* Addendum/What is the issue here: I will try to summarize. C edit warred against at least two editors to tag the article while refusing to say what she thougth needed to be done to fix it, being so hostile and rude one (who tried to improve the article when removing the tag) left in misery; the other is myself: I have asked numerous times, saying "I'm trying to help" etc, for '''what''' C sees as the specific issues. C was so nasty that if I were not sick as a dog and barely editing at all I would have already started an Rfc on her. She has been uniformly hostile and rude, and refused to answer simple questions which were only asked so her concerns can be addressed. She has now placed the article on FAR, lying and saying no one was interested in improving the article, even though I made it clear I would do my best if she'd just let me know what she wanted. She failed utterly to AGF and since she never listed her concerns '''until she put the article on FAR''' then her assertion that she'd given anyone a chance to even discuss her concerns is, to say the least, implausible. I am now going back to bed. I will try to get back on tomorrow and will address any specific issues then; but for now, allow me to state that I'm not asserting the article lacks inline sourcing. I have never made that assertion, and anyone talking about the '''article''' here is missing that C is accusing me of 'admin abuse' and also SV, whom she accuses of collaborating with me (which those of you who have seen mine and SVs interactions over the past year or so will find laughable at best.) Regardless, she's clearly claiming I'm in a Super Sekret Kabal to harass her, and all I ever wanted was for her to list what she thought was wrong with the damn article, preferably without insulting me or other editors, or acting like a total shit to anyone. I got neither of those wishes. Good night, and apologies for any terseness in this post. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::In response to Slrubensein, about the tags, when reading articles I personally find fact tags pretty helpful as a warning. I know they may or may not be of use in editing... They often get ignored; but I have seen editors who care about a topic work to provide citations to replace fact tags. As a reader, fact tags tell me that someone who probably knew something about the topic felt that a statement was contentious or unreliable, and when I'm genuinely interested in finding information on the topic, that helps me know which information to question. Of course there are drive-by taggers who don't know much about the topic, but then, editors who know better would probably remove it -- therefore if the fact tag remains, I know it's probably there for a somewhat good reason. ] (]) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Something's wrong with ]. It has a link and some footnotes, rather than the usual included page of the day's nominations. I don't see any recent edits that would have caused the problem. This problem may resolve itself when a new URTC day starts in a few minutes, but it would be nice if someone could fix the underlying issue. <span style="font-family: Times;">] (] • ])</span> 00:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fact tags can be helpful, because they tell you what exactly needs to be checked. But this was a tag slapped on the entire article, with no effort made to say what needed sources, no offer of help to find them, and indeed a direct request to help being rebuffed, accompanied by edit warring to restore the tag when two editors removed it. That kind of tagging isn't helpful. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:{{reply|Eastmain}} I added a {{tl|reflist-talk}} template to the AfD from whence these references came, which "moved" them into the proper section in the log (now ]). --] ] 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As has already been noted, I DID say what needed sources before KC got involved and before you got involved.. Instead, the only responses were "be more specific", as if you'd prefer I slap a fact tag on every last unsourced sentence in the article (the large bulk of the article), which would then result, I'm sure, in being reverted again. The fact is, the article has enough unsourced statements that the article tag is far more practical than individual fact tags. And as KC now claims I didn't explain until the FAR, it would seem that he has no problems with my FAR details which is...the same points I'd pointed out before and that he either kept ignoring or kept claiming was not specific enough. I made more than enough effort to explain, numerous times, and was attacked every time. It is not my job to help you or anyone else to find sources for the article, which I have never edited. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Looks normal to me now. ] (]) 00:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Wow, my post near the beginning of this thread must have been invisible. People simply go on saying the article needs footnotes—is unsourced because it doesn't have footnotes. It would really be helpful if they read the whole thread first. Or, another suggestion: please go straight to the FAR of the article, ]. I believe people are more likely there to have read the article before posting, because, as Tznkai points out, ANI isn't really for content disputes. I suspect many people aren't psychologically prepared for a tl;dr thread about ''footnotes'' (that dullest of subjects) when they dip into an ANI thread such as this one. And I'm extremely sorry that I've now made it longer and duller still! ] | ] 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC).
{{abot}}
:Bish, this article ''needs'' footnotes (inline citations) if it's going to remain a FA (inline citations are mandated by Misplaced Pages's featured article criteria). I think this is what Collectonian was pointing out. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">''] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Inline citations are indeed mandated by Misplaced Pages's featured article criteria ''where appropriate''. Where appropriate =/= every paragraph, sentence, clause, etc. and it's unfortunate -- perhaps even a bit tragic -- that we as a community lost sight of that, that we lost our ability to stop and ''think'' about what our guidelines are and why we have them. --] (]) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*Wow is right. I'll admit that I haven't read much of this tl;dr thread, but I have to say that I am truly shocked to see this here. I've known KC for a while, and I have '''never''' known her to be unwilling to discuss, explain, or work to an acceptable solution. I have to ask - was there an attempt to talk this through with KC (and/or Slim), if so could you point me to it, because I haven't found it or clicked the right link yet. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


== User:Hatutuons ==
:::Jay, exactly right. But what do we do about it? I've tried to raise the issue at the FA and FAR talk pages. I've tied to make it clear on WP:V and its talk page that not every edit needs a citation. But the reality is that inline citations are demanded on FA for the most trivial and obvious of points. As a result, submitting an article for FA nowadays is a truly miserable experience, and some of our best FAs are being delisted, or threatened with delisting, because of it. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Withdrawn. ] (]/]) 01:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


{{user2|Hatutuons}}
::::I count about six sentences in the opening two paragraphs that I would tag as needing a cite. And to be honest, if this was a new article, I would point the creator to ] and ] and remove large chunks of text if nothing was done. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">''] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 05:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


<s>Persistent disruptive editing, mass additions of unsourced content and ] despite multiple talk page warnings.</s> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 01:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The article has cleqrly sourcing problems and doesn't meet current FA criteria. Furthermore, I fail to see the "personal attacks" removed here by KillerChihuahua, and can't help but notice that the clear and obvious personal attack by Giano made minutes before in the same discussion is not removed. I think it is best if people like KillerChihuahua and Giano took a step back from this article and discussion, it looks as if they aren't approaching this in a neutral manner at all. ] (]) 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Please provide diffs. ] (]/]) 01:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::NVRMND. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 01:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Harassment by ] ==
:KillerChihuahua isn't an admin? That is a real problem here that needs fixing. Unless it breaches animal cruelty laws. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 08:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}


{{atop|{{nac}} IP 155.98.131.7 has been blocked for 31 hrs by User:Liz, along with another IP used by the same person, 155.98.131.3, for the same duration by User:Cullen328. —&nbsp;] ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
==Giano==
Harassment by ]
::Giano's comment I think steps over the edge of ]. He's usually more clever about dancing on the edge of the policy, but perhaps he tripped and fell over the line. As for tags and so forth, all articles are subject to them, and none, whoever wrote them, is immune. However, a tag should carry with it an obligation to set forth the problem on talk page, and to stay engaged. I agree that standards for FA are tightening, and that even FAs from 2004 or 2006 that have not deteriorated may need improvement to meet standards. Editors such as Mattisse are doing good work in that area.--] (]) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I assume you refer to "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" ()? I agree that this violates ] and ]. The user at issue, {{userlinks|GiacomoReturned}}, previously editing as {{userlinks|Giano II}} and {{userlinks|Giano}}, has a long history of blocks for such behavior and should know better by now. I have blocked him for a week; we should consider an indefinite block on the next occurrence.
:::Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama, I invite community review of this block here (I have also added the "Giano" header above for ease of editing). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Sandstein, you're feuding. Using the tools to feud is a serious offense. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::How am I feuding? I am not aware of being in a ] or some sort of editing dispute with Giano. (Sorry for inadvertently removing this reply with a buggy script.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::That's the devious thing about feuds. Sometimes the participants don't see them as feuds. The signs to me are that you're over-reacting to provocation, your response appears emotional rather than rational, and Giano does not view you as a neutral party. This one week block of Giano will cause much more harm than good. Calling somebody a ] is pretty mild. The action here turns a molehill into a mountain. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I respectfully disagree. My (limited) previous interactions with Giano were in a purely administrative capacity; if Giano has not taken well to them, that is not my fault. I would have sanctioned any other user with a similar history of past disruption likewise, and I do not believe that the disruption at issue is mild. I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Just above you said, "Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama," and then you asked for input at ANI (here) a page watched by >4000 editors. Lighting the fuse and tossing a drama bomb is what I'd call that. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd call it asking for community review of a potentially controversial action, which is advised practice for admins as far as I know. So far, it is not I who is generating drama. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Sysop tools are not to be used for controversial actions. When is doubt, ask for feedback BEFORE, not AFTER, acting. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::This was a non-issue to begin with, and it had gone away. Sandstein, as you admit your last block caused drama, it would be a good idea not to do the same thing again. Please unblock before this escalates. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I disagree that severe violations of our conduct policies are non-issues, and Wehwalt's report indicates that it has not gone away. I am simply reacting to a disruption report on this page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::This thread was closed. It should have been finished business. It's classic, classic to the point of farce, for a closed thread to suddenly change topic to Giano and for him to be blocked. Just undo your action and start ignoring Giano. It will be best for all concerned. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe any sense of ''déja vu'' is because of Giano's apparent persistent inability to observe our conduct policies? My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to ignore it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Attempted to refactor my user page
::::::You asked for input, Sandstein, you're being given it, and it's good advice. Please undo. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I will do so, of course, if community discussion here - for a reasonable amount of time, to allow admins from all time-zones to participate - does not support my action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Sandstein, this was an insanely bad block, so much so that I'm wondering if we shouldn't block you for disruption. As JHochman points out, '''the thread was closed, your block was fueding / punitive''' which is exactly the kind of behavior which led to Jimmy having to "voluntarily" give up his block privileges. Poor judgment. Yes, there are those who are missing the point, below, who are supporting this block. They are viewing the post Giano made ''only''. They are missing that you didn't prevent a damn thing; you've been involved in dramafests due to your quickness to block Giano before, making this block wrong even if everyone completely agrees Giano should have been blocked - as you were most emphatically '''not''' the person to do it - and of course, blocking on a very stale event which was provoked by one of the rudest people I've ever had to deal with, who started this mess by making threats and started the thread by accusing me and SV of "admin abuse" even tho no admin actions at all have been taken against her. This is pathetic; I agree with you most of the time, so it makes me even sadder to see your judgment go so thoroughly down the drain. Just don't do anything regarding Giano, Sandstein - you're not neutral and you're not following policy and you're causing problems not solving them. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Why am I not the person to do it? I'm just an admin doing my job, and we're not usually allowing disruptive editors to choose the administrators that they are comfortable with to block them, yes? As mentioned above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator. Unless there is community consensus that I am insufficiently neutral in this regard, I intend to do my job with respect to Giano just as I will do it with respect to other editors, with no particular favor or disfavor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::KillerChihuahua, I don't think you are to judge on this block, since you first removed an imaginary personal attack from Collectonian, but then saw fit to ''reinstate'' the blatant personal attack by Giano. For you to threaten other people with blocks for disruption in this incident is laughable.] (]) 12:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Indeed. If anything, KillerChihuahua should be blocked for reinstatijng the attack, but ''that'' is something I'll leave to another admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Refactored a users comment on my talkpage
*Good block. Giano gets away with too much too often. It won't stick, of course, because the usual cheering section for Giano's outrageous treatment of other editors is loud and cranky enough that they cause disruption until they get their way. And of course that just enables Giano the next time he decides to start hurling invective. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
*:Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*I have no issue with this block. Giano stepped over the line, again, and was correctly blocked for it. Turning this into an ''ad hominem'' about Sandstein's theoretical feud with him (an argument I don't personally agree with) doesn't change the fact that Giano is still being seriously uncivil and one of these days he needs to ''actually stop doing that''. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*:Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*Adding a clear-cut personal attack (nothing behind the "keep" was an answer to the FAR rationale, it was only directed at the nominator) with a history of personal attacks is way over the line, I endorse this block. I hate blocking constructive contributors, and have no problem with giving them more leeway in some regards, but that doesn't include answering with a ] to a good-faithed remark <small>(And I don't think I ever commented on one of those before, so I consider myself uninvolved)</small>. ] 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* I'm also completely uninvolved. I see the block as fair enough. However IMHO if the previous block caused a drama then perhaps it would have been better to just put a notice on AN/I expressing your assessment to the community and let someone else take the required action. Regards ] (]) 11:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*:Precisely, thank you for looking at the larger issue. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:*Judging from my limited experience, ''any'' block of Giano ''will'' cause drama, mostly generated by people who appear to be his friends. Leaving the blocking to somebody else, therefore, would very likely have generated the very same drama and no appreciable benefit. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Agree with block''' though in the interest of full disclosure I've had a run in with Giano in an editing capacity. I like to think the name wouldn't have mattered, that I would feel the same for any editor. Either way, I've given you my view and my COI which is why I took no action myself.--] (]) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*:Which was a good call on your part; Sandstein should perhaps take note. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*Well, you want uninvolved opinion so you can have mine. "You fool", whilst certainly falling under ], would often merit a warning for many many users - not a block. In addiiton the duration between the comment and the block is less than optimal. One week as a block length seems to be total overkill. Mostly however - block first ask questions late (knowing that any Giano thread get's everyone up in arms) would '''not''' have been the way I'd have gone about it. In short, whilst the block is within policy(ish) I think it would be very advisable to now unblock. This seems a bit too much like punitive than preventative. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:*I disagree. The attack (completely unprompted, as far as I can tell) is not limited to "You fool" alone, and as to the length, it's just an escalating block, taking into account all the previous blocks (of previous accounts) from which Giano appears not to want to learn. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::*Look, there's very little value in starting a thread "inviting community opinion" when you clearly aren't prepared to listen to it when given.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::*I ''am'' listening. I'm not required to ''agree'' with every opinion that is expressed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::*It appears that you've decided to listen only to those opinions you agree with, making this a pretty pointless exercise. Your judgement in making this block was clearly flawed, but that's not what you want to hear, so there's no point in reiterating what others have said. --] ] 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Advocated for blocked user with similar I.P
*While the blocking admin may say he is neutral all he wishes, I don't see that is the case, especially as it deals with Giano. Stale block, arbitrary time for usage of the word 'fool.' I'd unblock, but I used my one unblock and can only handle one straight-to-arbcom complaint at a time. Sandstein acts like a robot, reading a manual, and implies that he's the real victim because he has the burden of doing this job. Apparently policy is so clear about each and every administrative 'obligation' that it simply merits no discussion, ever. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 12:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the remark is an attempt at intimidation to prevent other such articles from being nominated at FAR. It attacks the nominator for a good faith nomination. It is also an attempt to disrupt FAR which in the past has been disrupted during nominations of articles by the same author. Because Giano has gotten away with similar and worse behavior in the past is not a reason for trying to stem it now. If Misplaced Pages wants to keep and retain editors, than this attack culture by regular editors must change. —] (]) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Used talk page to claim report to admin
*For those only reading the discussion and not the reason for it, the full PA was "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" A bit worse than just "fool", IMO. ] (]) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Talk page harassment
*I think the full context should be taken into account and that this was on an FAR page. Please read "Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin" above which involved attacks on the same editor over the same article. This is a pattern of abuse that occurs at FAR when articles by a specific editor are nominated by any editor. Often the abuse starts on the article talk page, as an editor seeks a simcere discussion of the article. —] (]) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*A week, for God's sake, and for a stale remark?! Gar, somebody shoot me already. "Excessive" is the only word that applies here. <s>But what should I expect from this stupid website run by rulemongers, anyway?</s> As usual, we waste our time with Da Rules instead of an encyclopedia. Anyone looking to fork? I'd be really glad of a website that is actually about articles and such. ] ] 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
and again and and
thanks ] (]) 02:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:], did you change this complaint after you posted it? Because there was a different IP mentioned, ], that Cullen blocked but I looked at 155.98.131.7 which is a different IP which wasn't blocked so I blocked them. But it's very confusing to change a noticeboard posting before it's archived so I'm hoping you can clear this up. Rather than altering your message, it would have been better for you to add to it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* The complete quote is: "Keep; get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" This is an utterly obvious NPA vio and certainly not falling within the standards of civility that one would expect to find on-site. Combine this with the previous remedies that have attempted to dissuade the blocked user from engaging in this type of discourse on-site, and there are reasonable grounds for a block of some sort. I don't believe the calls to completely reverse the block as null and void are justified at all, even if some of the voices are becoming predictable at these discussions. That said, any calls to keep the block duration as it is would not be justified either. Looking at the most recent of his block-log entries, I see two 24hr blocks (one in May and one in July ) which appear to have been OK'd. In such circumstances, to progress to a 1 week block in September is overkill.
::I added diffs but didn’t change the IP reported. Sorry if I made an error I’ve been away awhile and a tad rusty. ] (]) 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* In summary, '''reasonable grounds for a block of some sort, but the duration of this particular block should be decreased''' (if not by the imposing administrator, someone completely uninvolved if possible) - the duration should be one that is more appropriate; definitely not longer than 72 hours from when the violation occurred. ] (]) 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::I too got caught up a bit when I tried to non-admin close this. It appears that the ] and ] IP addresses have been used by the same person today. —&nbsp;] ] 03:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry I see my mistake, the IP changed while I was addressing the issue and so my diffs cover more than one I.P. Apologies] (]) 03:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No apologies necessary, I was just looking for an explanation as I thought Cullen had handled it only to find the other IP wasn't blocked. ], can you go ahead and close this discussion now that everything is figured out? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== 109.81.95.101 personal attacks and vandalism. ==
*Disagree with such an extensive block. Jehochman is correct, as far as I can tell; the block was issued after-the-fact, and does not apparently do anything to prevent damage to the project. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
**Julian: If Giano were to get blocked for his nasty behaviour--and more importantly, if those blocks would ''stick'' and not get overturned by a very small and very dedicated group--one might hope that it would have ''some'' chance of ameliorating his behaviour. As it stands, he has a free pass to say just about anything he likes, because he knows that within 24 hours, maybe a little longer, enough of his crew will scream and shout loud enough to get the block removed. And then he gets to do it again. And again. . Giano's blocks need to stick--he will not stop otherwise. And they need to start following a pattern: next offence, one week. After that, one month. Then three, six, 12. Oh blah blah blah, blocks aren't punitive--we all know that's a lie. But in this case they ''would'' prevent the '''guaranteed''' future personal attacks from him. We know they'll come, so no use pretending otherwise. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
*{{IPlinks|109.81.95.101}}
***I fully agree that something needs to be done to prevent further incivility from Giano, but as you said, the dozens of blocks thus far have done little, if anything, to help. Therefore, blocking for one week for what seems a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things is not the most appropriate course of action, at least in my opinion. Moreover, blocking under fairly controversial circumstances will in all likelihood do little else than fuel the flames, so a provisional stern warning might have had the same, if not more, effect. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have already reported {{User|109.81.95.101}} for vandalism at ] but they continue to vandalise and make personal attacks at ] such as . ] (]) 10:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I take no position on the justifiability of blocking Giano for his comment. However, Sandstein should certainly not have been the one to take action. Giano has been commenting about the Eastern Europe Mailing List ArbCom, where there have been numerous comments about Sandstein having been manipulated by the mailing list participants. Giano's disapproval for the alleged activites of mailing list participants is clear, as is Sandstein's sensitivity to claims he has been manipulated, so it would be understandable if Sandstein's objectivity is a little off at the moment. I don't know whether thier mutual connection the case fits within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but it sure makes me think Sandstein's claim of neutrality look tarnished. Added to the action being late, on a stale issue, and pretty harsh (even as an escalating block), I think this action looks extremely unwise. Sandstein, I suggest you reverse the block before someone else does. If the recent WMC case shows anything, it shows that ArbCom and "involved" blocks during a case are dangerous territory for admins. ] (]) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Already blocked by {{np|TigerShark}}. --] (]) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I am not responsible for any edits Giano might have made with respect to me. It would be ill-advised to discourage admins from blocking editors who might have previously attempted to offend them, because otherwise a disruptive editor would only need to attempt to offend enough people in order to claim immunity from being blocked by them. (Maybe that's what Giano's trying to do here?) As said above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit ''I'' made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.The mailing list matter was and is far from my mind here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::*This is a rather interesting issue; I did not touch on whether Sandstein should've been the one to take the action, or otherwise in my review above. I'm concerned that a lot of claims are being made, while not enough evidence is being presented here to actually substantiate a lot of it. EdChem (or anyone else who can help), could you please provide diffs to the comments Giano made that related to Sandstein? ] (]) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::*Sandstein, you have misunderstood my point - please allow me to clarify. I am not suggesting that either you or Giano has made an emotional "diff" about the other. Whether it turns out to be true or not, the claim has been made that you have been influenced by those on the mailing list. This is not to say you have acted improperly - it could be about mailing list participants allegedly provoking others into unwise actions, which you then sanctioned without knowing there was deliberate tag-team provocation in the background. It would be natural and understandable for your judgement to be a touch off with all this going on. Equally understandable would be a dseire for the mailing list issue to just go away, seeing as you feel you have not been influenced in any of your administrator actions - or even maybe feel some anger about being caught up in the whole mailing list issue. Then, along comes an incident where Giano, one of those making a lot of noise about the mailing list, has arguably violated WP:NPA. It's stale, the thread is settled, and you've had a controversy with Giano over a block before - but you still decide to block, and for a week. Can you really be 100% sure you were acting objectively and neutrally, with no influence from any of the background? Also, can you see why it might look from the outside like a less-than-wise decision? Maybe I'm totally wrong and am seeing something that isn't there... maybe I'm not. In any case, I remain of the view that you were and are the wrong person to act in this situation - but you are the right person to undo this block and end this controversy. ] (]) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Ncmvocalist, some relevant background material that you (and others) might wish to consider...
:::*The Eastern European Mailing List ArbCom case was first raised at AN/I in ], which first raised the possibility that Sandstein had been influenced by mailing list members' activities. "They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies", according to the initial post in the thread. It is relevant to note that the thread was itself a spin-off from another thread, titled '']''.
:::*It is also relevant to note Sandstein's reaction to the claims made: "I do not take kindly to any attempts to be used as an instrument in any plots, and may need to check whether any of my recent enforcement actions in this area require reconsideration (though I do not believe that I have been influenced by anybody, and have as far as I know not communicated offwiki with any involved parties". This shows Sandstein was concerned about the possibility that he may have been influenced.
:::*The "massive problem" was a ban imposed by Sandstein on Russavia. Giano's view was clearly expressed when he wrote "Sandstein, your bulying and threatening is now becoming a problem. I strongly suggest you back off, before others take action against '''you'''. You are too involved with Russavia now for your judgement to be sound or trusted. Please let others deal with these matters. You are only an ordinary admin please stop crediting yourself with airs, graces and powers to which you are not entitled. Russavia, you need to clarify your meaning."
:::*Following the opening of the ArbCom case, that "There is already more than enough evidence doing the rounds for you to be unblocked unconditionally. I think it would be a pleasant and concillitory gesture if Sandstein were the one to lift any sanctions against you. He has been, in a way, as much a victim as you. I hope he is big enough to see that." Sandstein was notified of this comment by Giano .
:::*Giano's view of the issue: "Thank you. I have definitively formed my opinion. Those concerned are in the mire up to their little necks. The only question following such organised and long term abuse, cabalism and manipulation of Admins and subsequently Arbcom cases is quite how one makes such an example of these people that no-one is ever attempted to be party such a thing ever agian. ('''Incidentally, for those wondering, Sandstein was not a member of this cabal, but one of those manipulated'''). My view is that the only option is making them all permanently banned users - The full extent of their actions will probably never ne known, but their proven Wiki-crimes and the damage they have caused, and the innocent reputations permanently tarnished, is too severe for anything less. I don't think any other view is possible or any excuse plausible."
:::*This background information is provided without comment, simply for others to consider as part of what led to my comments above. ] (]) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::*Cheers EdChem; that's clarified a lot for me. ] (]) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


== ], ] and blatant tampering of sources ==
*If the block dissuades abuse of editors for nominating such articles at FAR, the the block will prevent future damage to the project. As to length, that I do not know as there seem to be widely varying standards on such matters. —] (]) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*Christ almighty, this again? I'd like to note without amusement that this block has spawned a number of ] ] and ]. I congratulate all of you, with the deepest of sarcasm, on managing to collectively and completely bury the lead, making it impossible for a user to actually understand what is going on here.--] (]) 13:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


{{User|202.57.44.130}} has been mass reverted for repeated reasons such as this probable ] and ] and lying on their sources and edit summary (See , , and (repeated in multiple summaries regarding entries to the ]) and making multiple canned ] statements to scare off users trying to rv them . I also have reason to suspect that a COI may also be possible. ] (]) 14:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm trying hard to feel outraged, at either the stupid comment or the dumb block or the inescapable march toward pointless drama that followed. But I find that I just don't care anymore. I used to be firmly in Giano's corner, and in general, I still feel a bit more of a kinship with those who are traditionally his Friends, than I do with those who traditionally his Enemies. But lately, he seems less interested in what's Right and what's Wrong, and more interested in who's a Friend and who's an Enemy. His Friends will likely deny that; his Enemies will likely claim he's been like that all along; but I'm comfortable in my opinion. He's finally succumbed to just playing ''Misplaced Pages The Game'' with the rest of his Friends and Enemies. <p>I try not to care what happens to those playing The Game. The only effect is has on the rest of us is keeping ANI up at the top of our watchlists, making Misplaced Pages look ridiculous to others, and wasting our time when we're weak and momentarily succumb to caring about The Game ourselves. <p>But since I ''am'' weak, and have succumbed myself, I just want to register my disappointment in pretty much everyone involved. Sandstein: It's possible to communicate with other humans without jumping to the block button. Giano: Content-free insults? Is that what you're reduced to? Worse, inelegantly pedestrian insults?. KC: Inexplicable restoration of an insult, from someone who a few weeks ago asked me to remove a much milder "unhelpful" comment. Please, please don't tell me that you define "helpful" and "unhelpful" as "agrees with KC" and "doesn't agree with KC". <p>Luckily, I can solve the "Giano Problem" for myself by unwatchlisting ANI for a day or two, until this either dies down, or you all get a subpage and go play there instead. I recommend this method to whoever has the willpower to do it themselves. --] (]) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:I haven't looked into their use of sources but I posted them a warning message about threatening to get other editors blocked if they edit certain articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 17:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not going to question anyone's efforts here (] and all), but I am wondering what the "heat to light" ratio is going to be in the end. All for a FAR? Just seems to me to be another drama chapter in the Misplaced Pages ] at the moment though. At least in my opinion. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


== User:Sportzlove continuing to make disruptive page moves ==
*I've seen different editors comment that the issue was stale, too old, or something similar. While I understand that you shouldn't block for things that happened months or years ago, I fail to see why a block of a regular editor for conduct that happened less than 12 hours before, and which fits in a regular pattern, would be a bad thing or too late. The core of our blocking policy is "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." Giano has (as an editor) long-term civility problems, some of it excusable, some of it not. This is a current problem (as in, happening in the last 24 hours), and he should be strongly encouraged to change his behaviour. A week long block may send the message that many editors are fed up with this aspect of his contributions, and that all the good he does and has done is no excuse for such remarks. It also indicates that if he does continue like this, his next block may be a month, and so on. That the remark came half a day before the block seems highly irrelevant to me in this case. ] (]) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


{{atop|result=Page moves reverted and user indef blocked. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 15:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::More reruns? Seriously, lets try adjusting the plot a little bit the next time this episode airs. ] 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{Userlinks|Sportzlove}} continues to make bold and unnecessary page moves after final warning by ] () and hasn't responded to any issues on their talkpage. This is becoming increasing disruptive with multiple revert requests being sent to ]. Recommend this user is blocked from page moves if possible, as doesn't appear to understand ] policies or page moving conventions. I have addressed page moves today, but there remains another batch of moves from the 14th January that almost certainly all need reverting as well en mass. User has been notified (). ] (]) 14:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:@] {{small|(since you liked being pinged)}}, Thanks for dealing with requests, could you revert the other four from same user as well please? ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 15:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::? Could you explain your reply? It's unclear what you would want to adjust and in what way. ] (]) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::{{done}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have blocked. NOTHERE/CIR. ]] 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Appreciated, nothing else to add here, is ready for archiving. ] (]) 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC ==
::This entire thread has happened on this page several times before. I was not responding directly to you, but rather to this thread. ] 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::You might want to take more care with your indentations, then. Indenting like that made it appear you were replying directly to Fram, as I am replying to you. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


I was going to let this go as there has been no recent (within the past two days) hounding, until a comment by {{user|Basile Morin}} led me straight here.
Apparently, asking for inline citations is enough to push some people over the edge of civility. This isn't as bad as the "nuclear meltdown" of another user last week in similar circumstances. By now Giano got the message that his remark was inappropriate. Perhaps the block length could be reduced to a standard 24h one? ] ] 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:If Giano ''has'' gotten the message and credibly apologizes for his personal attack, I'll unblock him at once. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this has ever happened in any of the past incidents that caused him to be blocked. At any rate, we can't know until he reacts to the block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Since at least January 3, I have seen a general pattern of ] on the ] board involving accusations that {{user|ArionStar}} has engaged in sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons, something I find only of minimal relevance with FPCs. I have counted <i>at least</i> three times where a user ({{user|Charlesjsharp}}) has copy-and-pasted the following message on a nomination ArionStar has started:
*Sandstein is '''DEFINITELY''' invovled with Giano and they have been in repeated disputes in the past. This block also stinks beacuse there was no discussion or effort to resolve the issues in a reasonable collegial fashion. We must expect better from our admins. You're not here to add fuel to the fire, but to help resolve disputes so the content work and article creation can be aided. Bad block. Sanctions against Sandstein may be needed. ] (]) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I notify other voters that the nominator has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user. (at ], ] and ])
:*ChildofMidnight (and Law, above) may be a bit cross with me at the moment because of ], so I guess his comments may need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm still interested to hear what all these disputes ''are'' that Giano and I are supposed to be involved in, though. I remember none. I did block Giano (once, I believe), which led to a dramatic discussion much like this one, and since then, Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me; I have been ignoring that. I do not think that this makes me too "involved" to act as an administrator here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not only is this failing to ], it's also completely irrelevant to a process involving images. It's sort of like telling people to oppose an FAC because they haven't given good reviews. I would have left this here, until another user (Basile Morin), engaged in Wikihounding, decided to directly attack me and ArionStar instead of constructively responding to my concerns. What really damns me is , in full. I was struck with the flu, so was unable to respond, but I think I'll just bring it directly here, seeing how this isn't the first time this has happened:
{{quote|text=There is no "target" as you imagine, and each of us would like to be able to calmly evaluate new quality nominations as we are supposed to see in this section. Rather than being asphyxiated by an avalanche of weak candidates, all precipitated by the uncontrolled frenzy of a hyper-impulsive participant. Furthermore, no user is obliged to come and provoke conflicts via illegitimate puppets, and even less so if you don't want us to be interested in you. You are , EF5, according to your own words. Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months (], ], ]...), and you also use . Some of your ] are orphans and you're probably not the "author" of the . Above, you wrongly mention a "retaliatory opposing" when if that had been Charles' intention, he could have voted "oppose per JayCubby" to bring down this nomination even faster. But ] is usually an excellent reviewer, also a photographer and nominator, regular on ] and ], with ] and 303 on Misplaced Pages. I think the idea he expresses is mainly a serious fed-up feeling, to see, once again, a deluge of nominations coming from the same overexcited account. The fact is that ArionStar is here only because he was banned from Commons, unfortunately that is the sad reality. However, the goal is not to repeat here the same mistakes as those made there. Note also that, just after , ArionStar turns a deaf ear and , as if he were absolutely seeking his sanction. Obtuse insistence is bound to annoy even the calmest and most patient people. It is obvious that if you want to progress and maintain good relationships with others, you must first be able to become aware of your mistakes, and the reasons for your failures. There is no hunt against ArionStar, but no "special indulgence" either. In my opinion, Charles has mainly tried a kind of moderately subtle "]" aimed at the participant himself, who would do better to listen once and for all to the good advice, rather than ignoring it and making fun of others. This , well before he was banned. Kind regards -- Basile Morin}}


I mean, what kind of comment is this? Whatever it is, it needs to stop. "Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months" is just cherry-picking things I've done, with no actual regard to relevance. I really don't think a "talk" is going to do much here (which I've already tried), so I'm bringing it here.<span id="EF5:1737221536794:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
*As a general point, civility policy is not a rule made in a vacuum. First, it is a positive claim that we want editors to act with a certain amount of decorum and cordial behavior, for the mutual benefit of all. Second, and more on point, incivility, especially personal attacks, are distracting. They end to quickly sidetrack conversation from the point at hand (ideally content) to fights either ] or ]. The aim should be to avoid these tangential and ultimately pointless discussions.--] (]) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:If Charles and Basile don't commit to cutting it out, I think one way IBANs are definitely in order here. ] (]/]) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:(ec) ], this is a confusing report to try to sort out although Voorts seems to be able to follow things here. Are you the only commenter here or is some of this content from another editor who didn't leave their signature? If this entire complaint is all from you can you identify, in one sentence, which editor you are complaining about (since several are mentioned here), whether or not you have notified them of this report and what exactly your "charge" is against them? Again, give the heart of your complaint in ONE sentence although you may include diffs. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I am the only filer. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]: As I understand the report, and from looking at the diffs, Charles and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that Arion is socking/engaging in harassment/vandalism at Commons. Basile and Charles have both been around for a long time and should know better. ] (]/]) 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you, ], for the summation. I am completely ignorant of what is going on at the Commons. It's enough for me to keep up with what's happening on this Wikimedia project of which I only barely succeed at, much less know who is socking or who is blocked on other projects. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::''"and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that"'' => No, we did not vote here. -- ] (]) 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The intent was clearly to cast aspersions on the entire nomination, even if you didn't use a bolded oppose. ] (]/]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Arionstar was indeed indeffed on Commons and has socked there, creating some bad blood among some FPC regulars. For better or worse, however, we regard the projects as independent. In fact, demonstrating constructive behavior on a different project is often a good strategy to appeal a block. As Arionstar continued socking at Commons, I don't think that's the goal, but the point stands that anyone who wishes to see Arionstar sanctioned here would need to open a thread on this board with diffs showing bad behavior ''here'' (or, at minimum, bad behavior elsewhere that's ''directly'' connected to conflicts here, such as harassing a user on Commons because of a dispute here). Absent consensus otherwise, Arionstar is AFAIK in good standing on enwp.
:Doesn't mean anyone's obliged to support his nominations, of course, and I don't blame the Commons regulars from not doing so. The only problem would be an opposition here solely due to behavior there, which (as much as I'm critical of enwp's FPC criteria) is probably not a valid reason for opposition. That said, I don't see that anyone has done that? At ], Charles posted a comment and did not vote. Basile opposed, but provided clear reasons why, which didn't center on behavioral issues. Just not sure what there is to do here. Maybe this bit of advice will suffice: (a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::The isssue with it, and it is something that has been brushed off prior after I brought it up, is that these "comments" make it sound like you should oppose the nomination because of the nominator's off-wiki socking, which is ] against him, at least in my opinion. The comments are completely unnecessary, too. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm learning from my mistakes and ]. The FP guidelines here are different but I'm understanding them day after day. ] (]) 18:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ArionStar's disruptions ===
== Vandalism continues on Pokémon manga articles ==


(First, to take into account at the origin of this report by EF5, an annoyance ''perhaps'' caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination: ].)
For background, see ], ], and ]. Editor as returned to using Dynamic IPs from AT&T in Springfield, Missouri claiming that the sourced information that he/she had previously called ] are now a personal attacks against some obscure forum users. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 22:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'd hardly call the two largest Pokémon forums on the internet "obscure". --] (]) 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::"obscure forum users" does not seem to mean ''"users" on "obscure forums"'' but instead seems to mean ''"obscure users" who are on "forums"''. Could be wrong, English is an iffy language.- ] 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm saying that the both the forum and its users are obscure. However it is absurd to claim that stating that a manga (comic) is targeted towards children (referred to as ''Kodomo'') is some sort of personal attack. This is not the first time this editor has vandalized Pokémon manga articles. He/she has removed the exact same information from both this article and '']'', which is currently semi-protected do to the vandalism. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:This IP has been at this for awhile and has been blocked some half dozen times, at the last, under different IPs. He is also now vandalizing ] and he has already jumped to a new IP, so blocking of ] may only be marginally helpful at this point. Requested RPP on the target article, again, as it seems to be the only way to deal with this particularly persistent vandal who is determined to deny reality. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::I went ahead and semi-protected the article for now. ] (]) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Fairx, so far you've posted on the content board, the NOR board, and you've posted here. Please be aware that could be considered forum shopping. I responded to you over at the NOR board, and for ease of reading, I'll summarize here.
The IP is removing the statement that the movie is a Kodomo. There's no source that says this, so the IP is correct.
Any claim has to be backed up by a source. The "kodomo" claim isn't. (I'm an anime geek, and I'm familiar with that term, and I agree it's pretty obvious to anyone that watches the movie - BUT - I AM NOT a realiable source, so I can't put in what I know. :) )
<!-- This signature doesn't fit in the signature box, and it prints the same amount of text as I had before -->
<!-- Therefore I'm observing IAR and placing it here -->
<!-- Talk to be before you delete or blank this page, please -->
<span style="color:#333;font-face:Trebuchet MS;solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED;padding:5px 5px;letter-spacing:2px;text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><sub>]</sub><i>]</font></sup></span> 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Neither of these articles are about a movie, but about two manga series that ran in a children's magazine. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Now, concerning ArionStar:
== Ban of RMHED lifted ==
*{{userlinks|ArionStar}}
See:
#]
#] (now ])
#] (clear attack against me)


My talk page also was "attacked" with (, , , , ).
I'm going to place the lifting of the ban on RMHED under the category of controversial incidents. There is a diversity of views on ], on his ban, on the ArbCom, and on the ArbCom lifting the ban. ] to get a true idea of whether or not people agree or disagree with the lifting of the ban. ] (]) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


]. These , with left to the user (),
== First Flight High School ==
before being by ArionStar as if my talk page was a battleground.


'''More worrying''', A few days ago '''the same person used sockpuppets''' to pollute my account on Commons:
{{resolved}}
#]
Can someone keep an eye on the idiocy taking place on ]?&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 23:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
#].
:reverted to your version, and fully protected for 3 days. ''']''' (]) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Exhausting. There have been a lot of , on Commons. Best regards -- ] (]) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Regarding me being “mad about my failed nom”, that is casting serious ]. I engaged because I saw what looked like uncivil behavior, '''not''' because one of my nominations failed. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== Removal of unblock requests? ==
::Thanks for your ''subjective'' opinion. I don't accuse you of misconduct here, just optionally indicate this trigger in context, perhaps, as a guess, and in parentheses. -- ] (]) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: I recommend striking your comment about EF5. There is no indication that this AN/I report is retaliatory. In all 3 of the FPC links above, you started it, not ArionStar, who rightfully dismissed your comments in those discussions. ArionStar's conduct at Commons is not a valid reason to oppose an FPC and your continued posting of the same thing at every FPC has been disruptive. ] (]/]) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::. Regards -- ] (]) 20:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Basile Morin, I strongly suggest striking your comment about EF5, as it's ] which is not on. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your suggestion. Last time , it later turned out that my first impression was the right one. I am fortunate to have sharp skills in psychology, nevertheless I admit that everyone is fallible, including me, and that it is possible that I am wrong on this one. I hope not to offend anyone and that this parenthetical introduction does not distort the (essential) substance. -- ] (]) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::] about ] doesn't help your case when you are ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


::Basile Morin, it's hard for me to see that friendly exchange on your talk page as an "attack", it looks to me like they were trying to make peace. But if you don't want them posting on your User talk page just make that request. As for what happens on the Commons, you'll have to contact admins on that project because we have no jurisdiction on there. If you suspect sockpuppetry on the English Misplaced Pages, do not make comments in unrelated discussions, just file a case at ]. But we don't want battleground behavior from the Commons coming on to this project, that could end poorly for a number of editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Resolved|Question answered. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}
:::"Attacks, attacks, he attacked"… I'll keep my silence because I try… (It's sad to see when someone "loses the line" after a "ceasefire request")
:::P.S.: " annoyance ''perhaps'' caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination"… ''kkkkkkk'' (laughs in Brazilian Portuguese). ] (]) 23:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::], I think it would benefit all editors, including you, to let this feuding die and go out of your way not to provoke each other. Focus on the work. I would be happy to not see a future complaint on ANI about any of you guys but that takes effort on everyone's part to let the past go. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{Agree}} Thanks. -- ] (]) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


'''On reflection'''
OK, I would like for someone to explain to me exactly what the rule is. It has been my understanding from what admins say, and supported by what the rules appear to say, that removal of declined unblock notices is forbidden while you're still blocked. Is that correct, or not? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
*] (see the start of the second paragraph). ] (]) 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to user ] if I may have made one or more errors of judgment regarding them.
**This started with a minor edit war involving ] and another editor over removals of various warnings from a blocked IP address's talk page (]). We've got Prodego saying a user can remove ''anything he wants'' "as long as he's not being disruptive". I interpret that rule that removal of denied unblock request is ''automatically assumed to be disruptive'', "gaming the system", and thus is not allowed at all. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know this user very well, and having noticed that they often change their name, use multiple accounts, and , I may have indeed become too defensive. Since they are apparently very young ], I may have made some wrong assumptions of behavior. It may also be the fatigue generated by ]. So all the better if this person (EF5) is reliable and well-intentioned. I don't blame them for anything, and I'm rather looking forward to getting back to my usual activities.
***Baseball Bugs is asking this after I said - in response to a ] - that it is ok to remove anything from your talk page, so long as it isn't disruptive to do so. For example, if you were to ], or you were to not request unblocking again, it would not be a problem to remove an unblock notice from your talk page. However, Baseball Bugs insists that even in cases such as these, removing the template is totally forbidden, and has spent the last 4 hours trying to convince me I am wrong. He has now started this thread on ANI because he disagrees with my response to this ''theoretical question''. I'm not sure I see the ] of this. In addition my so called "edit war", consisted of '''one edit'''. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
****The point is to find out ''the right answer'', so that we're both clear on the rules. And I did say a "minor" edit war. Maybe "edit skirmish" is more like it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:This would likely be a situation where ] could come into play. Yes, blocked editors aren't supposed to remove declined requests while still blocked, but it would be a silly thing to get into an edit war over unless they're removing them while continuing to add new requests. --]]] 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::Just to add, that IP did not have a unblock request on their talk page, in fact, that IP wasn't blocked. What I did there was restore an edit in which the (static) IP removed warnings from its own talk page. Removing warnings is uncontroversially allowed. This entire section is based on something entirely theoretical. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::That's true. I didn't have any issues with Prodego's handling of the talk page. I had an issue with has blanket statement that a user can remove anything they want from their talk page. At the time, I was not aware Prodego was an admin, and I'm seeing 3 different opinions from 3 different admins here so far. Regardless, it seems that the rule itself is clear but that some flexibility via IAR could come into it. Obviously, blocked users will react in a variety of ways and handling them has to be tailored to fit. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, I'm all for hypotheticals, but Prodego's answer was accurate. Plus, an unblocking admin would still review the block log and contributions of the blocked user. This particular scenario would not be a problem to any admin who is doing their due dilligence. ] (]) 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:OK, I'll let you and Protonk slug it out. :) However, I still insist that his original blanket statement that a user can delete ''anything'' on his talk page, is not correct. And I'm getting tired of this expired equine by now. Thank you all for expanding my understanding of all this. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


I agree with and thank him for his effort to calm things down:
== Protect this page from editing by unconfirmed users? ==
{{xt|"(a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp."}}
I understand that my approach was not the most tactful, sorry. I can nevertheless prove that the approach was 100% healthy and intended to help Misplaced Pages.


I have absolutely no problem with ArionStar contributing constructively to the development of the encyclopedia (if that is really his intention). However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that from another user is in my humble opinion far from being as the other imagines. This is perhaps a most important point.
] has had to be protected from unconfirmed users due to repeated vicious personal attacks. They're now coming here. Can somebody protect this page? ] (]) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The last thing I claim is the need for ArionStar to immediately and permanently stop using unproductive puppets. Neither elsewhere nor here. See ] '''"Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts'''.


I noticed that after self-imposing a "wikibreak" they reverted another user to my own talk page, thus adding to the annoying noise. I would therefore be grateful if ArionStar would never again try to get in touch through this channel. I need peace and concentration.
Actually, it looks like a range block is going to be required, despite the fallout, because whoever it is is address hopping, and making the attack edit on a wide range of articles. ] (]) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Finally, I am happy, personally, to make an effort of discretion. I have accepted the criticisms that have been addressed to me, and sincerely consider them constructive. Thank you to each and every one of you. I wish you all fruitful research and rich contributions on Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello? Anybody? This needs to be addressed. ] (]) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:*Wait, what just happened here? ] (]) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*please explain what you are talking about. ] (]) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
** See vandalism on ] which then spread to here. I've removed it. Semi'd ANI for a while to see if they get bored. Rangeblocks will be ineffective, it's AOL, far too wide a range. <b>]</b> 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
***But the edits are being made to all kinds of articles, not just AN and ANI. ] (]) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== Block from creating new pages ==
Edits such as are being dropped all over Misplaced Pages. This page has been protected, but a range block needs to be looked into. ] (]) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{atop
* Which part of "it's too wide a range to block" was the difficult bit? <b>]</b> 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
| result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
**Why do you feel the need to be abusive? My concern is that there are too many of these edits, and just protecting these two pages isn't going to accomplish anything if they're editing things like ] with the same sort of edit. Have you decided that you've done your part by protecting these two pages, and now nothing more needs to be done? ] (]) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
}}
*** I'm not being abusive - I pointed out that a rangeblock was not feasible, and you carried on asking for one. There's nothing to be done about edits from a range that wide except treat them as one wuold normal vandalism. It's not that we wouldn't ''want'' to block a range that wide, the technical restrictions meant we ''can't'' block it (it's a /10 range, max block is a /16 range, it'd need hundreds of rangeblocks) <b>]</b> 23:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Black Kite is one of the very few admins who even understands ''how'' to do a rangeblock, let alone is actually willing to go and do one. I'm inclined to think he knows if it's too big of a range or not. Tempting though it may be, we probably shouldn't block half of America from editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::* We might want to take that to a policy discussion. ] (]) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I accept that explanation. Thank you. Your previous snippy, snarky, nasty comment was not acceptable. ] (]) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::We might want to think about whether it would be possible to set up short-term edit filters to handle situations like this. ] (]) 00:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Possible, if it continues long-term. More likely, as I said, they'll get bored of it eventually. FWIW, I looked at the IPs that have been used so far, and while they don't cover the whole range, they're still too far apart to usefully rangeblock, not to mention the collateral damage. <b>]</b> 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::So instead of figuring out how to keep the guilty parties from editing, it's decided that preventing ALL IP's and new accounts is a better solution? Insert baby with the bathwater, overkill and all those other trite but true cliches here. ] (]) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Perhaps if someone contacted me about this (figuring this was an attack on me), you would have had your answer sooner. Basically, on a different wiki, a member who had it out for me on that wiki decided to come after me here. He is obviously using open proxies, so I don't know how to logically stop him if it happens again short of a range block. –]] 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Black Kite. I apply range blocks from time to time and found them moderately effective, but dealing with collateral damage can be a real pain. ] (]) 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


It seems like {{User3|BodhiHarp}} could contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but they presently do not understand ] or generally how they would avoid creating junk pages that otherwise need to be deleted (e.g. pivoting from a G3 at ] immediately into a G8 at ] without any clear indication they get the message of ] after being begged to read it to begin with). It seems they need to slow down in any case. It's possible that general competence will be an issue, but before that I think it might be worth it to see if they can help out with the articles we already have, perhaps becoming more familiar with our infrastructure and content guidelines where it doesn't create timesinks as instantly. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
If the edits are from open proxies, as Turian suggests, doesn't ] apply? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:102.220.210.123 unexplained removal of content, adding unsourced content, and misrepresentation of sources ==
== False charge of sockpuppetry ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


{{Userlinks|102.220.210.123}}. Previously blocked for 31 hours by ] for <s>disruptive editing</s> edit warring (); warned repeatedly for unexplained removal of content, disruptive editing, and vandalism (); has continued with unexplained removal of content, adding unsourced content, and misrepresentation of sources () Safe to assume this IP address hasn't learnt from previous mistakes and a time-based block isn't going to resolve issues. ] (]) 21:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Resolved|I think this is under control now. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}
:Well, time-based blocks are what sanctions IP editors receive because IP addresses are frequently reassigned. You're not going to get an indefinite block here especially given their low level of activity. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
A series of harassment sock accounts, aimed at me, have duped ], with whom I have had pointed discussions about the ref desks, into thinking that I am responsible for those socks. I have warned Nimur to stop making these false charges, but he won't, so here I am. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
:This is purely a distraction from the main problem: Horseplay at the Reference Desk. Bugs has been repeatedly warned to stop the disruptive play at the desk. ] (]) 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
::And your appearance twenty whole minutes ago lends a tremendous amount of credence to your case. </sarcasm> ]]] 01:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
::(ec)"More often than knot" came on board immediately after "More honestly" was indeffed. He's a troll who's trying to get both me and Nimur into trouble. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Bugs has too much self-respect to do anything as pathetic as socking. But may I respectfully suggest that he limit himself to one RefDesk comment per day across sections where he does not actually know the answer to the question? I enjoy his jokes but it's clear that some people don't. Regards, ] (]) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I've seen worse comments at the ref desks than the ones I've made. But I will work to adhere to your recommendation. With the caveat that sometimes a question requires more questions back, or some "guesswork", to clarify what the reader is asking for. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Not that it is really necessary, Knot is checkuser-{{confirmed}} as Honestly. NawlinWiki blocked just before I attempted to. Ranges are too large to block, unfortunately. ]]] 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::(ec)"Knot" is now indef'd also. There have been several harassing socks recently with vaguely similar names. I don't keep a list, and ] suggests I shouldn't make too big of a thing of it. But I want Nimur to cease and desist from making these false sockpuppetry charges against me. Meanwhile, I have been doing better than I was at refraining from mocking silly questions on the ref desks, and I pledge to continue to do better. By the way, the broad range of the block suggests a particular sockmaster, which I would just as soon not state publicly due to ]. I'll send you an e-mail. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


{{u|Religião, Política e Futebol}} and {{u|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} have both been edit warring at ] over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.
As a point of reference, I the block request at AIV and ''Nimur'' about ]. — ] (]) 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== Bluecanary99 ==
:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. ] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Repeated vandalism by IP 27.125.159.200 on spaceflight related pages. ==
I would like to bring to attention the conduct of {{user|Bluecanary99}}. When the cancellation of the radio show ] was announced, they immediately started pruning references to it and nominating it for nomination. That's fine. However, their conduct became... off. They became extremely paranoid and/or exhibiting a martyr complex, i.e. everyone who disagrees with me is in some kind of cabal. This only got worse, and he or she created a ] thread, accusing ] of being ], without any evidence. After "harassment" (i.e. people questioning the very basis of his accusation), he begged and begged to be left alone, to which I finally acquiesced, hoping that it really was all over.


] vandalism:
But though he promised to 'never edit any page defended' by our sekret cabal ever again, he started doing just that, but with the opposite intent. He is making strongly ] edits, attempting to damn Luke Burbank with faint praise. The best example of this is , an edit that cannot be justified even by the most diehard TBTL fan, let alone someone who clearly has an agenda against the show.


Removing the water landings regarding the Flight 4 and 6 boosters from the table.
Furthermore, I would like to point out this account was created a mere 27 hours after a previous account, ], gave up in their attempts to get unbanned for a long cycle of exhibiting a paranoid martyrdom complex while trying to get TBTL and Luke Burbank's articles deleted. Sound familiar? I have a strong feeling that NotabilityPatrol and Bluecanary99 are the same person, though I doubt the issues at play here justify a checkuser. But due to the lack of civility (They both also share a trend of accusing those who disagree with them of being sockpuppets or, in this case, a meatpuppet of the very subject they're trying to delete) and the recent WP:POINT edits, I wanted to bring this to the wider community. Since there's been no false death threat for them to bandy around like NotabilityPatrol did, I can't justify blocking them with current evidence (And, frankly, I'm surprised I didn't get chastised for that one), and I'm too involved, though I managed to get past that for NotabilityPatrol. But this really does need more eyes looking at it; Bluecanary99 clearly does not have the wiki's best interests in mind with their edits. --] (]) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Removing the failed landing attempts of the Flight 2 and 3 boosters, marking them as expended while also breaking the template
Reference material:
*The TBTL AFD: ]
*The COIN entry: ]
*The Wikiquette alert against Bluecanary: ]


Demonstrating ability to repair the templates broken, does not do so
::Please note, I have pleaded with Golbez, Nathalmad and other members of this group to please leave me alone. I have pledged to them - repeatedly in many different forums - not to edit TBTL or Luke Burbank entries, nor to even view them, in the future and I have apologized for filing a COI against Golbez' colleague ]. (Note in this COIN I did the best I could do to draw admin attention to what was then a spiraling out-of-control situation by noting - prior to listing my evidence - an "Appeal for Higher Level Action", noting that - based on '''4 hours''' spent reviewing the edit and talk logs of the first AfD a 'noise machine' would likely be started against me in retribution for the COIN, which did occur ... the only thing I feel guilty for is not understanding just what I would be put through or how fast it would happen. Now, it appears, I'm "in the thick of it.")

::I know I got them upset by appealing for help with Arakunem - ] - mistakingly thinking he was a mod and could help me and that backfired. I have apologize for raising this issue many times as well.

::When I made my initial edits I did not know these were "defended" pages and didn't know what I was getting into. I am not any of the various other users I have been variously accused of being in the last couple days - there are several HUNDRED accounts created "within 27 hours" of ''any'' editor ''ever'' being banned - I very much invite checkuser or anything else to confirm this; in fact, I would plead not to deny me this before stringing me up. I'm at a total loss of what to do. I just can't deal with the "noise machine" of transparently coordinated "flood complaining" by this group of editors anymore. As a single editor I don't have the time or ability to be in a constant state of defense. Since my apologies and repeated pledges not to edit - or even view - the offending pages have met with no luck I have a strong suspicion my time is up and, if an admin can't be found who'll agree to ban me, Golbez will just do it himself as he told me he would do on my Talk page and elsewhere at a time that suited him.

::In my last moments here all I can do is apologize one final time to Golbez, Nathalmad and the others, reiterate my pledge not to make any future attempt to edit "Too Beautiful to Live" or "Luke Burbank" nor to view them, and hope for the best. Golbez, I ''plead'' with you, Nathalmad, etc. - again - to '''please''' accept my apology and pledge and let us move on. I want to be able to participate in wikipedia and I HONESTLY did not know these were defended pages when I nominated "Too Beautiful to Live" for deletion. I know I was warned by other contributors who were afraid of participating in the AfD discussion there and I should have paid heed.

::Humbly Awaiting My Fate - ] (]) 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

'''Procedural Note''' I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. ] 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks, but you may notice the previous edit was of me doing the same. --] (]) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

::It seems we made the notification edit in the same minute of each other. My apologies for not noticing it first. ] 01:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:*I became involved after replying to the above named COI report. Bluecanary later asked for help on my Talk page. My advice there was for him to completely disengage. His reply was that an offline "arrangement" had been reached whereby he would take some course of action in return for "guaranteeing his protection". These actions were apparently, judging by his contribs after the fact, to go through various articles and add or replace references to Luke Burbank and the show. I'm a bit concerned by accusations of stalking and phrases like "guaranteeing my protection", though I can't find any on-wiki evidence of such. My advice to Bluecanary still stands: Disengage completely. Just walk away from any and all these pages. You don't have to bargain for your "protection", just stay clear of these areas and ignore any "noise" that comes from them. For this board, if the SSP is not to be pursued, I would ask that we drop it here as well. This user seems to be in a full-on panic over this, and I think it best if all sides just disengage completely. ]] 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::The panic, I can assure you, is false, a put-on to attempt to engender sympathy (yet does the opposite, since they spend paragraphs on begging to be left alone, then punch the lion again).

::I just noticed something very, very interesting. In my time here, only two users have ever consistently misspelled my name as "Golbrez": NotabilityPatrol, and Bluecanary99. I consider this valid enough evidence to consider them the same person, which means Bluecanary99 is block-evading. --] (]) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] and a new RFC ==

{{discussion moved|Misplaced Pages talk:OUTING#WP:OUTING and a new RFC}}

This discussion, which resolved around whether or not ] applied to ] has been moved to a more appropriate venue by ]. ] (]) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{hat}}
{{cquote|"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. '''It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently."'''}}

Over the past few years I have seen ] being unevenly applied. For example, a certain editor I talked with a few months ago, no one can mention his old name. In other cases, editors regularly out other editors with no repercussions.

Take for example posted today. A Nobody has repeatedly asked editors to stop calling him by his previous user name. There was some real world harassment when he used this name, which DGG is aware of, and which I am sure that A Nobody can share with other admins on request.

Protonk, one of the 3 authors of this RFC wrote: "The ] thing isn't too important. It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue."

I requested that the creators of this RFC to remove this section.

Protonk, responded, saying
:"Why we chose not to is explained in the RfC. I'm prepared to have a discussion about this, but the cat is out of the proverbial bag."

I asked Protonk to give me the "the cat is out of the proverbial bag." policy. i.e. you can out someone when everyone knows their old name.

I think in the previous case, like many cases here, this editor has powerful friends, like an arbcom member to enforce his OUTING concerns, A Nobody doesn't so the outing continues.

I just removed this section, and I would like editors comments on this. ] (]) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:I have reverted. OUTING applies to real-world consequences, not a change of an online handle. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> (<small><font color="#993300">]</font></small>)</sup> 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::Okay, that may need to be clarified. How can this be dealt with: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." I have posted a notice about this on WP:OUTING and have contacted two arbcoms with Oversight ability who have special knowledge about these two cases I mention above. ] (]) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::"An editor who ''has requested a change in username''"&mdash;did A Nobody request a username change (keeping all the old edits under the new name), or is it just a new account? ] (]) 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

*Are we planning on notifying affected parties? ] (]) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

*It seems silly to suggest that "outing" a user's previous handle is ], particularly when 1) the previous username contains no personal information, 2) it's common knowledge and 3) the user retains so many - I'll go for ''individual'' as a polite way of saying it - character traits that anyone vaguely familiar with the old account would be able to identify the new one. ] (]) 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I think the need to have a discussion about agreed norms concerning outing is clear, as illustrated by the recent disagreement surrounding ] and related pages. ] 03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One point I should make. Once the RfC is closed, it can be courtesy blanked. As I noted on the RfC ''and'' the RfC talk page the reason the old username is used is to eliminate confusion and offer a clear delineation of actions. Once it is no longer needed then the rationale for showing it disappears. I am also willing to {{tl|hat}} it if there is consensus to do so on the RfC talk page. ] (]) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is here: ] and the response to the original concerns are ] there. ] (]) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}


Breaking another template
== Odd page move by admin - support for reversion sought ==


Breaking another template
Hi - got an odd one. Admin ] renamed a page without discussion or consensus at ]. One of the regulars at that page is a bit upset as a result.


Attempting to treat a broken template as a link
What makes it odd is that the admin had never edited that article before as far as I can tell. Also there was an extensive discussion where consensus for the pre-move name was achieved seven months ago. ].


Further attempts to use a template as a link
] to contact the admin involved but he's been offline for four days. Hence ] contacted me and asked me to revert. I don't see any problem, but thought I'd run it past the community before taking action. ] (]) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Outright deleting the broken templates (that they knew how to fix)
:I don't see any discussion on the talk page, or anything in the history, to imply any upset with the move. If a discussion is needed it should be taking place on the article talk page. Also it seems that the argument being used against the move on Proteus's talk page really has nothing to do with the move as the article was named in that style previously anyway. ] ] 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Finally restoring the broken templates
::I think the fact that there was a clear consensus for the previous name and this was changed without any discussion is substantial. ] (]) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


] vandalism:
:::I think it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. If there is consensus, then move it back. At this point we have yes an undiscussed move, but also only one regular editor speaking against it. Doesn't seem like intervention is needed at this point. ] ] 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::While there is nothing on the talkpage noting upset at the move, there are two examples on the talkpage noting the consensus for the pre move title. The one from 2005 might be considered deprecated if not for the one noted by Manning from earlier this year, which confirmed it. Notwithstanding lack of a link to the upset, the admin clearly was unaware of consensus and the move should be reverted. Another discussion may then be restarted by the admin over what policy they believe backs their action - in other words, I think this is a matter of ]. ] (]) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I was just putting in my 2 cents. I don't think the consensus was particularly pronounced, but fair enough. ] ] 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Well I appreciate the input from both of you. Cheers ] (]) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't believe it to be a major issue, since BRD happens all the time. As ever, when I commnt here, it is just my 2cents also. ] (]) 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Marking flight 3 vehicle as expended, with no landing attempt for flight 3 and 4. This is false: flight 3 attempted to reenter, flight 4 landed. Also breaks a template
== Creation of page apparently broke citations ==
{{resolved}}
I have no idea what the deal is with all of the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags at ], but instead of being footnotes, they now all link to the newly created page ]. Could someone please fix this? I am willing to bet large sums of money that this article is not the only one affected by the problem. ] (]) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Oddly enough, that page looks fine for me, but ] is displaying the behaviour you describe on my browser. ]] 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::This is an '''urgent problem'''. Many of the articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Help_talk:Cite_messages&limit=500 appear to be affected! ] (]) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I just tried something with the envelope article &ndash; can you try looking at it now and see if it made a difference, as it did to me. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That fixed the one (just a null edit?). Now there are many more to fix, though:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
And so on. About half of all articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Help_talk:Cite_messages&limit=500 . Is anyone up to processing these as well? ] (]) 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'm actually unsure as to what the problem was, because I'm not seeing anything wrong on any of those pages. Perhaps it was a temporary glitch, and you just need to clear your cache? Odd. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Repairs template, marks flight 6 and 7 as having not attempted a landing
::My fault. I was centralizing some talk pages and goofed by redirecting ] to that talk page. I found it and deleted it pretty quickly, but I knew it was going to be noticed. ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Aha! You got away with it as far as some people running indeterminate browsers/settings are concerned! ;) Resolved (I think) – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I knew it was going to be noticed, so I am prepared for my trout slapping. The job queue is not that large, so it should clear itself up without any "fixing". If you still see it, purging is resolving the problem. ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


]:
== Disruptive and extremely uncivil editor ==


Marks flight 2 booster as having not made a landing attempt
I’m not sure I’m in the right place, but I’d like to report a very disruptive and uncivil user.
User ] has violated several Misplaced Pages policies within 24hrs.
Everything started with him deleting some sources and disputing whether ] was a fascist dictator or not. Several sources were presented to back up that claim (9 in fact).
Within a few hours another user (]) besides me joined the discussion on the talk page.
Sometime later (within the same day) Die4Dixie left this message (in Spanish) on ]’s talk page:
''De hecho, estoy harto de tus pendejadas. Lástima que la gloriosa operación no fuera más exitosa. Si fuera el caso, no tedríamos tener esta plática tan asquerosa. Y lástima que la madre te parió no se desapareciera.''


Marks flight 3, 4, and 6 vehicles as having not attempted a landing, as well as flight 5 ship
I’m a native Spanish speaker, and this is a rough translation (which can be corroborated by any other native speaker), and the sentence in brackets is mine, so that you get the context of the vicious attack.


Attempts to insert a template where a template cannot go
'''In fact, I am very tired of your bullshit. It’s a pity that the glorious operation was not more successful. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be having this revolting talk. And its pity that the mother gave birth to you did not disappeared.'''


Reverts previous edit
Right after that, Die4dixie began canvassing for support , , . Oddly enough, he now claims that he support the inclusion of the word fascist but does so in a ] way. He has added the ''Fascism'' portal into the article, when such an addition is not standard for a leader considered to be fascist. See, Mussolini or Hitler for that matter.
I advised him that he might as well add Pinochet ''into'' the portal itself as there’s a section for “Persons”. He refuses to do so, discuss or otherwise seek consensus and instead engages in an edit war. , , . All of this has happened with a 24hr timeframe. Please advice on what to with this very disruptive and uncivil editor. Thanks. ] (]) 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Some might question your civility as well.--] <sup>]</sup> 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::Some might, but after a random sample of recent contributions, I'm not jumping in that direction. I seconded the 3RR warning on D4D's page, but they haven't edited for an hour.--] (]) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::Bedford I'm not sure what you're refering to, but I can assure you I'm not even close to violating as many policies as Die4Dixie has. ] (]) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::] he gets away with such a vicious personal attack? ] (]) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Agreed. Likeminas has been a voice of reason during edits to the ] article and elsewhere. His civility cannot be reasonably called into question. Dix4Dixie is another story altogether. His conduct has included personal attacks of a particularly vicious nature. ] (]) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


] vandalism:
In my opinion, the only adequate reaction to a slur like the one cited by Likeminas is an indefinite block, to be lifted only if and when a credible apology is received. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Adds claim of booster being expended without adding a source
:Tend to strongly agree. He should be blocked.] (]) 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::Just so we're clear, guys, it was Die4Dixie that stated the slur above, not Likeminas. Assuming that Sandstein and Simonm are speaking about the correct user, then I agree that a block is necessary and add my voice, for any admin trying to determine consensus here. ]''']''' 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Expands upon previous edit. Does not add a source
I can verify the translation of the comment as accurate, as well. Pretty egregious civility violation and a block looks warranted. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


They have been warned before to cease their vandalism. All of the above edits were done after this warning. ] (]) 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with Sandstein, GlassCobra, and Shereth. I have a pretty high bar for block-worthy personal attacks, but that comment was well over the line in any reasonable setting, much less in one that aspires to civility and collaboration. To Die4Dixie's credit, he did ; on the other hand, I don't know if that's sufficient for something so vile and hateful. More to the point, Die4Dixie has followed it up with continued edit-warring, now ].<p>I've placed a 1-week block. I'm open to having it lifted if there's some evidence that Die4Dixie realizes how inappropriate his comment was. A commitment to stop edit-warring and pursue dispute resolution would be an added plus; there is a reasonable argument that Pinochet's policies should be described rather than labeled, and it may convince people if made reasonably, but these are absolutely the wrong means to pursue it. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::], have you tried to communicate with them before coming to ANI? That's typically the first step and ANI is the last step if other forms of reaching out haven't worked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They've been warned before by another user, and the damage to the affected articles was rather severe.
:::Another warning would not disuade future vandalism/disruptive editing. ] (]) 03:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Death threats by 2.98.176.93 ==
:I understood perfectly who we were talking about.] (]) 17:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{userlinks|2.98.176.93}} Left a death threat {{diff||1270338492|1270334632|here - diff}}<br />
] (]) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*Note: 30 day block by {{user|Bbb23}} ] (]) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*Death threat left after block. Talk page access? ] (]) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:*TPA removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think {{tl|Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. ] (]) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:47, 19 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Incivility and ABF in contentious topics

    It looks like everything has been dealt with here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:

    Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883

    WP:NPA

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324

    Profanity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966

    Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877

    Unicivil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441

    Contact on user page attempted

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795

    Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as some diffs from the past few days are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would I be the person to provide you with that further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's for one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
    Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution. ]) Thank you for your time and input.
    Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: trying to report other editors in bad faith. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Minor discussion on use of ChatGPT in Lardle's user page

    @Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism. I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @BarntToust: I would appreciate if you did not derail noticeboard threads by rudely browbeating participants about seemingly irrelevant(?) issues. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think I'm gone from this board because of other work I'm focusing on regarding NIИ's Peel it Back Tour and other stuff. Ad Hominems are what I did, and pointing out questionable behaviour (IE unexplained, self-contradictory AI slop text) from the user page of the currently 1 week-blocked Lardle who just violated his topic ban actually seemed pretty helpful, as literally everyone else in this trainwreck of a thread brought up unrelated stuff (Lardle's unrelated COVID conspiracy mongering) instead of discussing Hob. I do admit I went on tangents through this already derailed mega thread, but I'm among others not much worse for the derailing. I mean, how many ANI reports start with a fellow reporting "This guy is using the word 'bullshit' on talk pages" and end with that fellow getting a broadly construed TBAN that they violate mere moments after implementation? Yeah, I'm again, I'm gone to work on other stuff. BarntToust 01:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

    I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Recuse Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Extended discussion

    Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things bullshit and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is WP:SPADE. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 fringe theory + pseudoscience debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. BarntToust 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a FA, that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "fuckin' wanker" because they botched a page move. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. BarntToust 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    When Michael De Santa shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells Trevor Philips that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". BarntToust 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. BarntToust 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. BarntToust 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    So, to recap, Houston: It's not what it is said that causes problems, it's how it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to call a spade a spade. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions bullshit is not the right thing to do. BarntToust 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Eh, you can say "That's WP:FRNG and WP:PSCI and does not constitute due weight as the subject is discussed in reliable sources". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their GA and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work isn't shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience.
    This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what the definition of "is" is. BarntToust 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) bullshit to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ] The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am in the diffs.
    I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a deeply silly comment. jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Extended discussion
    How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See WP:POTKETTLE, also please see WP:SOCK if you logged out just to make problematic edits here.... TiggerJay (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @166.205.97.61: Okay let me say it another way...
    • never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed.
    • since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted.
    • in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds.
    • when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history.
    But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @Palpable has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . TiggerJay (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a serious allegation, yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? However, if you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry. (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) TiggerJay (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the last 5 thousand edits to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits.
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. TiggerJay (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. TiggerJay (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. TiggerJay (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please read WP:SATISFY. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. TiggerJay (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    1. Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400

    Send to AE?

    Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to WP:AE since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
    That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
    It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - Palpable (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why wp:Being right is not enough is policy.
    Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. SmolBrane (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) -- Open thread below. BarntToust 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers

    TOPIC BAN IMPOSED By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, Lardlegwarmers is topic-banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the WP:MAINSTREAM remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a single-purpose account in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities.

    jps (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Oppose - Seems unnecessary and retaliatory. I say that even considering Hob Gadling a friend of mine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support The user is basically a WP:SPA who looking at their editing history, their basically sole purpose to edit Misplaced Pages is to aggressively POVPUSH about lableak on talkpages, a topic they can't even edit the main page of because they don't have ECP. They're not the only offender, but they are major one. Their contributions are only raising the heat and frankly do not improve the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      This is not a SPA. I’ve been editing on Misplaced Pages for a month or two, focusing some of my attention on the lab leak hypothesis because the article itself would benefit from a more balanced presentation of the topic, especially the broader social and political implications of the theory, based on reliable sources. For example, the article's suggestion that the lab leak hypothesis foments racism is simply not verified. Politicians and extremists have taken advantage of the hypothesis for their own reasons, but it's otherwise a viable scientific hypothesis. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) I've been on the talk page helping to sift through a lot of the original research and the sources (a lot of them) that don't actually say what people are alleging they say. Also, I have been trying to find some kind of consensus for filling in the conspicuous gaps where there ought to be information about notable non-scientific events like coverage of the notable U.S. Congress committee that focused on the lab leak idea and made major headlines in the media--and it's completely omitted from the article. I've worked to clean up the articles where they use journalistic sources to verify biomedical information. And I'm dealing with helping to sort out this chronic name-calling where there should be civil dialogue. In a separate topic, I've been working on fixing an obvious BLP violation where the article talk page consensus might be showing a bit of resistance to the site's policy itself. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support pro-fringe single purpose accounts are bad for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - What exactly is the reason to do this here? If jps wishes to file a vague ANI complaint against LLW (a new editor), there is a legitimate process for that which would look a lot less like witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering this discussion on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess. If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in" very heavily indicates your own POV inclinations regarding scientific topics. Silverseren 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note to closer: Palpable is another lableak POVPUSHING SPA. They only made about 70 edits between their account creation in 2006 and 2022, when their editing shifted to be basically solely arguing about lableak on talkpages for over 2 years at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Witness intimidation" 😂 so are we now a court of law? His honor, Jimbo Wales is our Chief Justice? The duck test tells us you are an SPA that has a POV to push. BarntToust 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BOOMERANG is not witness intimidation, nor is this a court. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm happy to discuss my background and motivations over email with an admin who has a record of neutrality regarding FTN. - Palpable (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Noted, thanks. - Palpable (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @jps, Misplaced Pages being "mainstream" in this context just means that we use the most prestigious source material available to verify our claims. It doesn't tell us to suppress verifiable information just because it would "challenge the status quo" in society. By the way, I am not saying that my account exists "to challenge the status quo". I'm just correcting what might be a misrepresentation on your part as to what that document prescribes for us. I have always used high-quality sources in any of my edits to the main-space articles and used the talk pages to express my concerns about unverified claims. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I fail to see how this addresses Hob Gadling's chronic and intractable behavioral issues. SmolBrane (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support – weak support for TBAN from COVID-19 overall, strong support for COVID-19 Origins, broadly construed (to include Gain of Function research, Fauci, WIV, etc) - This editor has repeatedly cast ASPERSIONS , has stated several times over that they intend to edit in a POV way to 'correct the biases that are in favor of the democratic party' , has shown a very poor understanding of policy (e.g. trying to advocate for a POVFORK , saying a discussion shouldn't be closed because no one could truly understand how complicated it is ) and a poor ability to assess the content of sources where they have a clear bias, repeatedly hitting others over the head with that failure to understand (e.g. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:BLUDGEON ). I think they could probably benefit from editing a less contentious area of Misplaced Pages. (and yes I have participated in some of these discussions involving LLW) — Shibbolethink 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Shibbolethink is heavily involved in the dispute and misinterprets as bludgeoning my consistent opposition to their prolific use of faulty citations. The examples of citations they provided here are a perfect case study in what I had assumed was a good faith misunderstanding but am now convinced must be intentional mis-attribution. None of the links they provided substantiate anything they’re saying. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support – COVID-19 broadly construed. I originally suggested trouts. But Lardlegwarmer’s responses in this section have convinced me that this user has problems with NPOV, DUE, and RS that continue even on AN/I. Perhaps six months editing elsewhere will be of value. And yes, I have been involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Says who? Everyone can comment here. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) Wp:cban Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the underlying dispute you have with Hob. The closer can take this all into account. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Lardlegwarmers may be right. Palpable's Oppose !vote, in particular, reflects involvement in the Covid lab leak dispute and should be disregarded. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      The criteria of having simply posted to a COVID article does not serve as a threshold for being in a dispute with lard leg warmers. If a vote is to be disregarded for its caster's fulfillment of being involved in a dispute with lard's POV-pushing, then a talk page discussion, diffs should be linked for certain proof. BarntToust 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Echoing @BarntToust's statement. I understand how it can be seen as problematic (also why I'm not voting), but that's not the standard. Furthermore, if it was, that would equally disqualify @Objective3000 and @Silver seren. (It shouldn't, just to be clear, but just making sure that's documented if we're going down this road.) Just10A (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Covid-19 T-ban. Their behaviour here smacks of "Them vs. everybody". Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I understand your sentiment, but what am I expected to do when all these editors are directly invoking my name and mischaracterizing my behavior and using sanction-gaming to push me out of a contentious discussion? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Surprised the CIVILPOV-pushing edit requests flooding my COVID watchlist this past month didn't result in a tban earlier. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Well it would have spoiled all the fun, since a CIVILPOV guy is apparently fair game to use as target practice for ad hominems in the talk page Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support given the behavior in this area of editing. And before you reply, Lardle, I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. You don't need to comment on every !vote here.
    — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility

    There is no consensus for a block or any other sanction at this time. Everyone is reminded that WP:CIVIL is a core policy of Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There are concerns about WP:CIVIL regarding this editor's behaviour. Should a trout be in order? A block? Or an editing restriction when addressing other users? The community will decide.

    BarntToust 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support 1 month block – Hob needs an ultimatum, and the behaviour, even though they're right much of the time, is unacceptable per WP:BRINE. BarntToust 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    This feels WP:PUNITIVE. jps (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    extended discussion
    Sure it would be. As John Wick once said: "Consequences." BarntToust 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Tarlby 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    When Keanu Reeves shot Bill Skarsgard in John Wick: Chapter 4, was that punishment? Or was that the consequence of Bill Skarsgard acting in a contentious manner and engaging in general buffoonery, conducting himself way out of place and S(crew)A(round)+F(ind)O(ut)? You conflate "punishment" with there being consequences for tomfoolery. BarntToust 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    We're discussing this on Misplaced Pages, not John Wick: Chapter 4, so I'm not sure how that has any relevance.
    Also, that sounds exactly like a punishment to me. Tarlby 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm disappointed you can't understand analogy. 😔 BarntToust 19:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suppose that, say, per example, a WP:GENREWARRIOR who edits their respective topics is "punished" when the consequences (block) start to kick in for their general bothersomeness? Look, we can have a whole schpeel about what the definition of "is" is, or we can subvert expectations and be really straightforward about a subtle subject. BarntToust 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose block I don't think this is a sanctionable level of incivility. I'd be ok with sending them a trout. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose block Hob is a long term contributor most often engaged in the thankless task of keeping fringe nuttery from overtaking a range of obscure articles. I don't see a history of problematic incivility that would warrant a block. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support block as per BarntToust. Over the years I've seen the editor be rude and borderline bully, if not outright. It doesn't reflect well on Wiki.Halbared (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • A 1 month block is not likely to change long-term behavior, and would only amount to punishment. That's why we don't do temporary blocks in cases like this. Rather, something is needed that will force Hob to adjust their behavior if they want to continue to edit. An indef block would do it, but seems over the top. One alternative would be an wp:editing restriction. What about:

    Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months on WP:AN.

    Of course Hob would be free to point out that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is WP:FRINGE, or anything else related to the editorial process, but they would be prohibited from commenting on other editors' ability to come to such conclusions for themselves.
    some of the diffs above to which this would apply

    I think this would solve a lot of the civility problems we see in the diffs. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should we apply the same strict civility standards to all of your edits? Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    extended discussion
    ad hominem. BarntToust 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    No. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    "I am your father." BarntToust 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    General complaints with the direction of the project and bemoaning that we ain't a meritocracy don't exactly scream "ur contribs and opinions are BS" like they do w/ Hob. BarntToust 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just think it's a little rich for someone whose semi-retirement comment bemoans "incompetent editors" at some length to be the person to propose a specific instruction that another editor be prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities. Glass houses, stones, all that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. I'm glad they didn't direct this at anyone specific, though. I've seen people complain that the Wikimedia Foundation is misappropriating funds to be a charity instead of a web hosting organisation, but long my five years of editing here have been since I've seen anyone with the audacity to take it directly to User talk:Jimbo Wales or the accounts of the board of trustees. (I mean, for the most of the years as an IP it's been semi-protected but hey ain't seen anything about it in the Signpost). BarntToust 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I mean, as long as nobody is being directly addressed in any scenario of any complaint, whether its Foundation business or Meritocracy grievances or words about the intellectual capacities of editors with opposing viewpoints, and its kept broad and generalised about the overall direction of the project, it's like trying to hold recourse against an editor for having a "I think Democrats are slandering Donald Trump on Misplaced Pages" userbox vs. the editor actually going out in the wild to PA a Democrat over their position in a discussion on Talk:Donald Trump. BarntToust 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately for this case, there's diffs galore of Hob going out of their way to call others' opinions and mental capacities bullshit and dull, and thus we are here. BarntToust 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. WP:CIR is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    And those words, editors, are the summary of the conclusion drawn at the above "extended discussion" CT. BarntToust 20:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed Hob Gadling Editing Restriction by Apaugasma

    There is no consensus to impose an editing restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months at WP:AN.

    Hob Gadling is permitted to comment that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is WP:FRINGE, or anything else related to the editorial process, but prohibited from commenting on other editors' ability to come to such conclusions for themselves, enforceable with blocks. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support Great contribution is not a get-out-of-jail free card from WP:CIVIL & WP:BITE, complying with this editing restriction should not be difficult. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    this is already being debated above. thought we generally shouldnt make multiple RFCs in a single section like this anyways? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose because this is inane, petty, bordering on Poe's law-esque. You can’t log an editing restriction that amounts to “Don’t be uncivil” because that should be the default. Dronebogus (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suspected off-wiki coordination in COVID-19 lab leak topic

    WP:BOOMERANG IntrepidContributor was warned to strike their accusation and take any evidence of the cabal to ArbCom. They have not done the former, and by all accounts (see HJMitchell's comment below) has not done the latter either. Instead, they appear to have tossed a grenade, followed up with another handful, and then come down with ANI flu when called to put up or shut up. There's very strong consensus below for a boomerang, and the consensus appears to be a topic ban from COVID-19, broadly construed, and a indefinite block until they agree to retract their accusations. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    It appears there is off-wiki coordination between POV editors going back many years in this topic. It is easy to spot this because complaints of non-neutral wording and unbalanced sourcing are frequent over years and from varied editors, while responses always the same and from same group of editors, often ending up in administrator talk boards like this resulting in quick ban by passing admin unaware of this dynamic. Calls for neutrality rarely ask for more than slightly more neutral wording (like not using wikivoice to describe "misplaced suspicion" in lab leak theory due to outbreak's proximity to lab ), and responses always cursory and blunted, and often even uncivil, which is why OP started this discussion. It common for these editors to immediately start threatening sanctions as soon someone comes near topic asking for more neutral coverage, making it impossible for progress without RFC on every tiny point. It is required for administrators to review coordinated editing in this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Let be caution you to not draw undue attention to yourself in these discussions, not because there is some grand conspiracy, coordination or cabal at work. Rather because it will cause people to being to look into some of your questionable editing behaviors. This is especially true as it seems like you're doubling-down on your position shared with a now TBAN'ed user, while casting grand aspirations of off-wiki coordination. However, if you have an actual accusation to present formally, please start a new section and be prepared to provide evidence (especially in the form of diffs) and not simply broad claims. Without such, there is no more a claim you might have to editors coordinating to work against your position, than might be said of editors who you align with that have been blocked or banned from FT topics. Please take a moment and look over WP:1AM and let me again caution you against boomerang, which LW learned the hard way. And lets you be tempted like Palpable above, this is not a threat, but please take it as intended, which is a friendly, AGF, suggestion to consider how you proceed from here, as your self-perspective of the situation does not reflect the actual reality of the situation. TiggerJay (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It might actually be easy to spot this because we're all so very, very used to the same old song and dance from POV-pushers by this point, can spot them coming from a mile away, and know that "neutrality" is the last thing they actually want. WP:NOTNEUTRAL explains this very well - as does WP:TINC: There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be easy to spot if you read dispute where there is actual RfC where consensus (so far) clearly leans in the way of the editor you call POV pusher. Perhaps it was too much for me to ask that you read the diffs properly instead of taking the complaint on face value, but I expect more of you as an admin. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you could provide diffs or links for your claim of off-wiki collusion that would help. Circumstantial evidence and asking editors to read between the lines isn't very useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are you being facetious? Off-wiki coordination is by definition, off-wiki, and diffs are not possible. This is an administrator noticeboard diffs are not the only admissible form of evidence. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is an administrator noticeboard, clearly, yes it is, that and that only. The evidence required to prove off-wiki collusion should be sent to WP:ARBCOM, because off-wiki business can't be brought here because, many reasons, though to start, posting reddit links and discord convos usually constitutes a vio of WP:OUTING. So get off of this noticeboard with problems it is unable to address, and see WP:ARBCOM. BarntToust 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, should such evidence exists, don't just open an AE case (again, WP:OUTING) but rather contact the arbitration committee privately. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Coming to ANI about off-wiki collusion compares to a person calling a welder when their plumbing is clogged. BarntToust 14:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Welders too do plumbing,. EEng 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Aha. I refer to calling a welder when plumbing is clogged, not really installed or replaced. Usually when I call the local plumber to unclog my master bathroom toilet, a minimal amount of sparks are produced during their work. BarntToust 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination this should be sent privately to the arbitration committee. If you don't have evidence you never should have opened this thread anyway. Either way the right thing to do is to withdraw this accusation from this venue. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You apparently only read "diffs" and not "or links". Unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS shouldn't be anywhere, let alone ANI. If you have any proof take it to ARBCOM per Simonm223. If you don't have actual proof then you should retract your claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    So... are ya gonna cast ASPERSIONS or are you gonna send Arbitrarion some links to, idk, discord servers, IRC rooms, anything? Bans—they're what happens when an editor has, nearly a fetish, for trying to include information—at every possible turn—that goes against medical professionals' standpoints. Consensus in the scientific community establishes an idea and discounts another, Misplaced Pages covers the major, non-fringe outlooks on subjects. BarntToust 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd like to give IntrepidContributor one last chance to strike their comment, otherwise I don't see how this can end anyway but badly for them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Following warnings and warnings about not casting aspersions and making baseless claims of collusion, IntrepidContributor ignored them and has taken the same aspersions and baseless accusations of collusion to AE anyways. Their chances have run out. BarntToust 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on this answer, yeah, I think the best course of action is to encourage IC to look for other parts of the encyclopedia where they can work collaboratively and to be firmly invited to cease editing anything related to COVID-19. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    This comment, I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you, makes it sound like you are either bullshitting everyone about having evidence, or you are more worried about running everyone around the corner like dogs at a fire hydrant rather than actually helping out and exposing some serious fuckery that's going on in the topic. BarntToust 18:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @IntrepidContributor As an uninvolved admin looking over this, I suggest that you either confirm your submission of evidence to ARBCOM or cease your allegations of off-wiki collusion. You've not provided any evidence/diffs for on-wiki collusion and have repeatedly made accusations. This is unacceptable. WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP EvergreenFir (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    How are my supposed to confirm submission of evidence and to who? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Damn it, dude, you ARE running us around the bend like dogs at a fire hydrant! As has been instructed for you to do numerous times: Go to the page --> WP:ARBCOM <-- and look for the instructions to submit reports, and put your "evidence" there. Confirm that you did so here, and we will trust that you have: whether or not you actually did matters to nobody, because the only thing that will matter is that and if you did, a case that is none of our concern will open, and then if that case finds your "evidence" true, then those of us involved in the conspiracy will be put to arbitration either behind the scenes or at WP:AE. BarntToust 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or as the uninvolved Admin notes, an arb will confirm that they have received something from you, thus this tangent will close. BarntToust 18:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Say you've emailed them and I'm sure ScottishFinnishRadish or HJ Mitchell or another arb would be able to confirm receipt of a substantive and meaningful email containing your evidence. If they can confirm it, I would close this discussion. If not, I would look at WP:BOOMERANG EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, I will email them in the morning (EET). I didn't plan on this extra work load today. But I have enough diffs to make the report by then. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are putting this off as if you have nothing to report. First IntrepidContributor says "I have diffs", then present them. No, it's "I have off-wiki collusion", then go to ARBCOM. Cycling back-and-fuckin'-forth between this dog-fire hydrant nonsense, and finally, now we're back at "I have enough diffs". And you ask, "to who  ?", and after reiterating everything we have said numerously through this thread, you say I will email them in the morning. You had enough time today to open this thread, then throw a blunderbuss of accusations everywhere, and you had enough time to bring your bullshit to AE. Yet, you don't have enough time to list diffs and give explanations to the arb committee? I smell a load of horse shit.

    I invite the next uninvolved admin to issue a block to IntrepidContributor for general disruptive editing.

    Yours in Buddha, Jesus, and SpongeBob, BarntToust 19:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @IntrepidContributor - by my watch it is now in the afternoon EET (17:55), can you confirm here if you have actually submitted the email earlier today as promised here? TiggerJay (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish @HJ Mitchell -- any chance you can confirm if @IntrepidContributor has contacted ARBCOM in the last 24 hours? TiggerJay (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nothing in my inbox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think at this point IC has failed to make good on their "I'll do it in the morning" commitment. And they still decline to withdraw their personal attacks and baseless accusations. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. This is a direct accusation against an editor here and a nonsensical statement about the arbs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    as do you No I struck don't and I've had enough of being tarred with baseless struck. Whether that's here or at lableak talk page, somewhere I rarely comment on a topic I rarely edit. You appear to only be able to see editors you disagree with through a battleground mentality, and as part of some conspiratorial cabal.
    Unless an Arb can confirm that evidence has been provided, and shows something I've obviously missed, I propose IntrepidContributor be blocked for WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, they said they think the arbs already know. So I guess they're in on the conspiracy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000, please Read that again in full context. What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. This was only a smartass, tongue-in-cheek remark about how "everybody here knows about fight club, but doesn't talk about it". Like, a smartass remark that "POV-pushing and cabals are an open secret knownst to the gentry" or something. No arb has been notified, the editor is being a smartass. BarntToust 20:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, I read this two ways, I thought you misread their text 😅 you're probably just being funny. lol sorry. The editor still needs a block tho. BarntToust 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. But at this point, not sure I can tell when they are being serious or trolling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000, @BarntToust - I would hope the next uninvolved admin would see that I gave conditions for IntrepidContributor. If those are not met, they will be blocked. There's no rush here and carrying on this discussion calling for blood isn't exactly productive.
    If another admin find clear and convincing evidence warranting a block of Intrepid Contributor, then they should block them. Otherwise, I'd ask that the "offer" remain. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would block them now, @EvergreenFir, and I would wait until a member of ARBCOM confirms—not what IntrepidContributor submitted—but that what they've submitted is legitimate evidence of what they claim is happening. At that confirmation, and with the ARBCOM member's blessing to the blocking admin, then the editor would be unblocked. The editor is fucking with us even as we outline the processes to make ARBCOM reports, and their other contributions listed in this report such as improper, half-assed deletions they won't bother to complete properly are screaming NOTHERE. BarntToust 20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with BT... (except the potentially uncivil, but probably warranted uncivil language)... Beyond this discussion, IC is otherwise being disruptive to the project including blanking pages with a lousy excuse.. Since they had the time to start this discussion that was apparently so urgent and a big deal, yet not the time to complete the necessary paperwork, coupled with all of the other factors, it seems like blocking to prevent further disruption is prudent. TiggerJay (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    thanks for concurring. As the community has above developed a consensus that an editor using profanity to describe actions and behavior is not prohibited, I'm completely safe in calling IC's behavior shitty (WP:SPADE), so long as I make no direct remarks about IC personally. I don't believe I've done that. BarntToust 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    As Jay said, besides the report, they have been being disruptive in other parts on Misplaced Pages, and considering the fact that they have been disruptive during the very processes of ANI itself, besides the unfounded claims of cabals they spew, there has been enough bullshit going on for a NOTHERE block. BarntToust 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Evergreen, forgive us our impatience. Some of us spend all too much time in CTOPs. It's wearing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If they show arbs proof of their accusations then fine, otherwise the they need to stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    My suspicion is that what IC actually has is like 2 diffs of some veteran editor saying to some other veteran editor "hey you should email me!" or something similar. Which is entirely normal, part of the way wikipedia works, and not "off-wiki coordination". Or some similar conspiratorial nonsense. When you're a hammer (conspiracy-believing POV-pusher) everything looks like a nail (proof that all the mean people who disagree with you are actually part of a secret government agency that's coordinating against you and laughing about you behind your back). Nothing that happens on the lab leak page requires or even suggests there is off-wiki coordination. Where contentious articles exist on wiki, there is almost always a small group of veteran editors who tangentially edit around that topic and watch their watchlists like hawks to make sure POV CPUSHing SPAs don't ruin the beauty that is a truly NPOV contentious article. They don't need to coordinate, because they generally share in common a belief in the five pillars and edit accordingly.I am really very excited to see what IC comes up with. — Shibbolethink 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I honestly think what it comes down to is selection bias. The sorts of people who frequent the Fringe Theory noticeboard and who don't get mad and leave quickly tend to be skeptical, critical and materialist. And critical materialist skeptics tend to look negatively on conspiracy theories, pseudo science and quackery. For a conspiracy minded person there's all these like-minded nay-sayers saying variations of "that's a conspiracy theory" and so they... do what conspiracy minded people do and assume it's a conspiracy. Really it's just a messageboard whose topic filters for a certain subjectivity. Simonm223 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    TBan would be appropriate no matter what. But IMO these ongoing accusations should result in an indef block for NOTHERE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Boomerang since they clearly did not heed advice to drop the stick and want to persist in their claims, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues. It has now been 20 hours since they posted so far, and I would be very curious to know if they actually did submit the email evidence that they claimed they would email them in the morning (EET). - It is now 5:54pm (1754) in EET, so if they haven't yet, then it should result in indef block for legal threats and excessive disruption. If they did fulfill their promise, then a TBAN is still most certainly in order. TiggerJay (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Did I miss something, what legal threats? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      For as much as this goofy goober IC ticks me off, I will give them one, one note: threatening to send people to the arbcom is not a legal threat. It's a Misplaced Pages "court", not an IRL court. WP:NLT doesn't apply here, but a whole heck of a lot of else does. BarntToust 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ah okay thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Uh, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee is not a court of law? jp×g🗯️ 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Block and TBAN already, this is beyond WP:BOOMERANG at this point, so have no idea why people are !voting that the editor shouldn't be immune from scrutiny; based on BOOMERANG they never were in the first place, and this discussion went full circle boomerang instantly. Anyway, this has wasted my time reading this section, I can only assume the other sections also wasted a lot of time. The editor is clearly being disruptive, casting aspersions, and is wasting everyone's time. Please don't allow this editor to drag this on any further than it already has been dragged out, such as requesting delays from ARBCOM to provide evidence or otherwise. CNC (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • <Final Jeopardy music plays> I can't help but notice that IntrepidContributor has gone quiet since promising to expose the cabal to Arbcom... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      You too, huh? Shall we ping someone uninvolved for a block due to legal threats and general disruption, or are you ready to do the deed? TiggerJay (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      @The Bushranger, I endorse you making the block on IntrepidContributor for NOTHERE and DISRUPTIVE. BarntToust 23:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      See WP:ANIFLU. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dinglelingy

    No edits to mainspace since 2016. Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    (Should we continue to keep all similar issues documented in the same monster section?)

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

    This WP:SPA seems to dip in and out of this controversy whenever things get "interesting", and here comes now again dipping in with some fairly spicy arguments on the Lab Leak theory talkpage: ,

    None of this user's contributions in this area are net positives for Misplaced Pages, and I submit that it would have been better had the proposed WP:NOTHERE block been enacted when first proposed: . I guess a topic ban from COVID-19 could work too?

    jps (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    • 115 edits ever, and only 4 minor ones to article space. Last seen arguing on the talkpages of COVID conspiracy articles in 2021 for which they were warned multiple times, and back after four years doing the same thing ? That's the definition of WP:NOTHERE. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE

    Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.
    I noticed an editor named Bgsu98 who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by WP:BEFORE before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)
    I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.

    I should note that Bgsu98 doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated Kamil Białas (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)). One can really wonder why he does this.

    P.S. More information is here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#Notability guidelines. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It seems that no one acted on this change until Bgsu98 came.

    P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.

    P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while Bgsu98 has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (source). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    "However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules."
    — They don't meet WP:NSKATE, but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet WP:GNG. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require WP:GNG, so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.
    (I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, WP:V has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like WP:NSKATE without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. TarnishedPath 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Star Mississippi and Liz: A WP:DRV, a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "Lilia Biktagirova" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova)? Cause I was searching for sources for Alexandra Ievleva and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.
    Here: "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)".
    And again, it was Bgsu98 who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting User:Hydronium Hydroxide: "There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    After looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova, I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have also found an interview with Lilia Biktagirova: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
    Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping BeanieFan11 and Doczilla. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Moscow Connection claims to be polite, yet wrote the following: "random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom". Pinging Shrug02 who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
    He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hanna Harrell: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"
    I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. Moscow Connection seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
      Also, a note to admins: Can it be that Bgsu98 finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".
      And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      According to this, "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Moscow Connection
      Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
      No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
      If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
      I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
      All the best to everyone involved. Shrug02 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Moscow Connection wrote the following in his original complaint: ”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.” I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met WP:GNG, the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...

    (2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.

    (3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's exactly the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.

    (4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. Ravenswing 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    “Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Let me help you out here, Ravenswing. I suspect he's saying it's "very unfair" because it seems to him like it's not fair! jp×g🗯️ 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria (What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. —
    Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a WP: BOOMERANG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often really poor; many are simply Non-notable figure skater, which doesn't say much of anything. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – and many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While you may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("Alexandra Ievleva" and "Viktoria Vasilieva".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.
      But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.
      Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)
      By the way, I have tried searching on what was once Yandex News, but the news search doesn't work anymore. (Here's an example.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. HyperAccelerated (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Arbitrary break

    ...editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". One such view published almost five years ago contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)

    RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. Liz 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
    A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".
    Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per WP:NSPORT", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports) revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Moscow Connection, I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. Liz 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In this AfD all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    ru:Sports (сайт). Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    (nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) Ravenswing 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
    And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.
    I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
    Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started. JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. GiantSnowman 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here and here is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised here and here, although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior. JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    And here are More and more and more and more and more and more and more examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes here, close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? GiantSnowman 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Going through their contributions, I see about a week ago there was a period of 30 minutes where they did seven AfDs -- not what I would call a paragon of thoroughness. But fifty in a half-hour is absolutely absurd regardless of when it happened -- I take more time than that to line up a shot when I throw a tissue into the trash can at the other end of the room. jp×g🗯️ 14:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. GiantSnowman 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. GiantSnowman 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that not a single one of them provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?

    So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. Ravenswing 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, especially these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. However, I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like this one I found today, tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. Toadspike 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed: No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.
        You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I've decided to save "Alexandra Ievleva" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Ievleva) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your input and insight. As I told BeanieFan11 earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.
        I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
        Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. Toadspike 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • 20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. GiantSnowman 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      While I do not know whether @Bgsu98 should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. @Toadspike. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. Star Mississippi 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating far fewer articles with Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! I suppose the whole discussion is moot. Toadspike 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)
      As I have commented below, when problems were found with Sander.v.Ginkel's articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if WP:SIRS can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. Star Mississippi 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, here and here. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      "As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that JTtheOG is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • As a fellow WP:FIGURE participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that @Bgsu98: convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion is warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. Ravenswing 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I agree with you, but in recent years, a significant number of editors haven't: sufficient to sabotage most attempts to do so. Ravenswing 13:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend everyone take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, WP:BEFORE states the following: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. So, I'd ask @Moscow Connection: to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: a normal Google search, or a Google Books search, or a Google News search, or a Google News archive search? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for expanding WP:BEFORE to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly recommend more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but required? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are significantly based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely WP:VPP). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does not require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion at the appropriate place if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (1, 2, 3) - dates back to May 2022. In fact, last year I issued a warning on their talk page (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with WP:NOTBURO. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. @Bgsu98: It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are multiple examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've provided some 20 examples as well. JTtheOG (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. JTtheOG (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by WP: HEY. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is your responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HyperAccelerated has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @Bgsu98 revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. Shrug02 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose any sanctions to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to Moscow Connection above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      In case it was not already clear I too Oppose sanctions against @Bgsu98. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. Shrug02 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whereas I support some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. GiantSnowman 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to my log, my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your most recent nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • How about Bgsu98 just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!) and we end the discussion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Two a day is fine by me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)
        Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)
        Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
        I am regrettably willing to support either of those sanctions against MC at this point. They’ve been warned multiple times about the possibility of a WP: BOOMERANG, and those warnings were not heeded. While I really want to assume good faith here, their behavior resembles WP: HOUNDING, following Bgsu from nomination to nomination and casting a copious amount of aspersions on this ANI thread. Even if some of the Keep votes provide legitimate sources, the act of following a user across many discussions and refbombing them (in at least one case, as described in the discussion below) is not acceptable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the Internet Archive. The Matthias Bleyer article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthias Bleyer) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)
        There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face WP:BOOMERANG sanctions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
        @HandThatFeeds: Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)
        P.S. I just came here now because Bgsu98 have edited some of my Russian figure skater articles just now. (I'm not attacking him, he hasn't ever nominated even one article of mine for AfD. Maybe because I'm trying to add a source or two to them.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think this would be reasonable. jp×g🗯️ 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I can see how Bgsu's nomination volume can be a problem, and support his voluntary limitations and promise to provide more thorough deletion rationales. At the same time, given the kinds of sources MC has produced as "evidence" of GNG at, e.g., Ievleva, I think his perception of our notability requirements is wildly out of line with the community's. As @Ravenswing pointed out in that AfD, MC basically repeatedly refdumped a bunch of interviews and couple-sentence mentions despite being informed of their ineligibility in contributing toward GNG, so if those are the kinds of sources they are bringing up now to demonstrate "nonexistent BEFORE searches" I am quite skeptical that the problem is as actionable as they claim. That, coupled with their broad disapproval (unawareness?) of our current NSPORT guidelines, makes me concerned about the notability of their own creations—are they also basing those articles on interviews and routine transactional blurbs? JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.

      In any event, I oppose any sanction or limitation on Bgsu. I am not sure when people got the idea that filing bulk AfDs was against policy, but they are very greatly mistaken if they do think that. ANI is not the proper venue for a community discussion on changing that policy, and I recommend the Village Pump. Ravenswing 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

      I came across this article today: Gleb Lutfullin. This was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: Vladislav Dikidzhi. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.
      Sorry that I left the articles like that, but I'm not too interested in figure skating lately, I just saw the 2025 Russian Championships results and wanted to create some stubs for some new "figure skating stars". (Back in the days, other users, ones who know how to format all the tables, would come and do everything. Just a blink of an eye, and there's a lengthy article — competitive highlights, music, everything. But now I can't see anyone. Maybe they are upset by the changes to NSKATE and stopped working on Wiki.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have added simply terrific sources everywhere. (Everyone has a full-fledged biography on a big media site.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I simply searched "Глеб Лутфуллин 2004" on Google.com. and this came out on the first page. You posted here instead of simply googling.
      P.S. I know that this article is not my proudest moment. But I don't really edit figure skating articles lately and I have never been active much in this topic. Not on the English Misplaced Pages, anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see WP:OWN. GiantSnowman 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also that source is very dubious. Look at their about page. Notice that they have a Guinness World Records Certificate image there? It's not got the official Guinness world records logo and there are errors in how the numbers are notated on it. Which suggests this newspaper has a fake Guinness world record cert on their about page. So, yeah, not very reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hello! First of all, I must explain that I only came to that nomination because Berchanhimez asked me to find some examples of Bgsu98 not doing any WP:BEFORE research. So I went to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating and looked at the current nominations. I am very sorry if I "dumped" a lot of "bad" sources on that AfD page, but I simply wanted to show everything that I had found. And I believe that it is advisable that Bgsu98 does something like this in his future nominations. Like: "Look what I have found on Google. This, this. this. I believe it's not enough and the skater is not notable. Now let's discuss."
      P.S. At first, I wanted to find some of his old nominations of some really big names, but I didn't know how to find them. So that's what I did, I came to the current ones. (I looked at some figure skating championships articles, but there were no red links. It seems that, after an article gets deleted, he or someone else deletes all the links to it.)
      P.P.S. I should probably be advised to retire from this discussion. Cause I'm being attacked already. And it looks like some people are already advising me to go away. So I'm going away. I'm still hoping something good will come of this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think this is good of you. You’ve provided your examples, and it’s now up to others to decide whether they are examples of violations of BEFORE or not. Thank you for refocusing your comments on specific examples rather than the back and forth that was going on.
      I tend to agree that BEFORE should not be a private thing. If someone does a BEFORE and finds nothing, stating such is good. But if they find borderline or a bunch of insignificant coverage, then providing at least examples of that in the nomination with a short explanation as to why they do not consider them valid goes to show they actually did a BEFORE.
      I don’t think a voluntary restriction on number of AfDs is enough to assuage the fact that the nomination statements are short and don’t address the sources that should be found during a BEFORE. But hopefully a limit of two per day will result in better nomination statements that address more borderline sources.
      At this point it doesn’t seem there’s any appetite for sanctions, and I think MC has been explained why many of the sources they have found don’t qualify for GNG. So maybe a closure with no action overall, and hopefully going forward less nominations at a time will result in more discussion in those nominations so that issues over why the sources found aren’t adequate can occur on each individual nomination. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Is this another one of those things where between the people who spend dozens of hours a week on enforcing policies and making up new policies and arguing about how to modify policies look down our noses at the people who "merely" write/edit articles when they are confused that the rules they laboriously followed for years have been randomly changed without even their knowledge, let alone their consensus? jp×g🗯️ 14:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      No, it's more like a dispute between someone sending a bunch of articles to AfD because they lacked proper sourcing, and a fan of those articles throwing everything they can at the wall to try and "save" those articles, while smearing the person who sent them to AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Never mind what I said uptopic, JPxG: policies and guidelines change, from time to time. Always have, always will, and neither yours, mine nor anyone else's personal approval are a precondition of ratifying them. It is incumbent upon editors to stay abreast of such changes if they're engaged in ongoing article creation, but at any rate, they're not exempted from them. Leaving aside that the GNG and SIGCOV have been around for many years now, the changes in NSPORTS are a few years old themselves.

      In any event, you surely can't be advocating that the most productive way to handle being in this situation is to kick, scream, and rail against the injustice of it all, as opposed to "Gosh, sorry, I didn't know. I'll go read those guidelines now, and conform hereafter." Ravenswing 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

      • @JPxG: That's a good observation! :-)
        But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It will be more fair than imitating an AfD process.
        P.S. I do appreciate the people who work on AfD and put their time in reviewing the nominations. I see that some of Bgsu98's nominations do end in a "keep" thanks to those hard-working people. But there are many more that would have been kept if a proper web search was done.
        P.S. I really can't participate in this ANI thread anymore, cause I have tried to comment on some AfD nominations and what I've got are just accusations of disrupting/sabotaging the process. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
        Okay, that's enough. This is just more aspersions thrown at Bgsu98, even after all the attempts above to get Moscow to disengage. I think Moscow needs a topic ban from AfD, and a one-way IBAN with Bgsu9. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
        The only thing I see about Bgsu98 in that comment is But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like. That's certainly a valid view of the nominations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
        Support TBAN and IBAN: My hand's kind of forced here. As I stated above, I really, really didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion, and MC has been warned many times to drop the stick at this point. This is the final straw for me. These read like veiled accusations, and while MC might come here and claim that I'm misunderstanding them, I just can't give the benefit of the doubt after witnessing this consistent pattern of misbehavior. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        • First, you invite me to AfD (that I do not normally visit), then, when I do drop by, you don't like my comments and want to make me banned from there. That's unpolite, to say the least. And what IBAN, fgs? I swear I didn't even know who this Bgsu98 user was until a few days ago.
          My hand's kind of forced here. — That's just strange. You are not an admin. Do you have some anger issues? I think it is you and HyperAccelerated who need a ban from ANI and an IBAN from interacting with me because I have never seen you in my life and you are attacking me all of a sudden.
          P.S. I hope this will be my last comment here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        Do you have some anger issues? And now you're casting aspersions, which is absolutely not a good look on top of everything else here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        @The Bushranger: I am very, very sorry. I didn't know that could be seen as "aspersions" that weren't allowed. They have also casted "aspersions" saying that I was trying to harrass Bgsu98 and sabotage the AfD process. When in fact, I just posted to ANI and never talked to Bgsu98 elsewhere. So I just wanted to reply to them in a similar manner. That was stupid of me.
        As for my "disruption" at AfD, I simply searched for sources and showed everything I have found. (That's how I usually search for sources, sorry. This time I didn't even try to go through all the 100 pages of Google results.)
        JPxG said that this was "one of those things" between people who enforce policies and the people who write articles. But it looks like some people who are attacking me are wikignomes who make minor edits. And when they saw one billion sources I had dumped at one AfD, they didn't understand.
        P.S. I hope I didn't say anything wrong again. I sincerely promise that I will never return to this discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience I have caused. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        I also don't think ignorance is an acceptable excuse for these kinds of comments at this point. As Ravenswing pointed out above (comment), you've been here for fifteen years. You should be more than familiar with the guidelines for civility by now. I also issued a warning that your behavior was becoming sanction-worthy here, and Hand also issued a warning here. AfD requires users to resolve disagreements over whether to keep or discuss articles in a civil manner. Given MC's aspersion that I have "anger issues" and the refbombing at this AfD of Bgsu's, I have serious doubts as to whether they can be an effective participant in AfDs. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I really, really didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion – HyperAccelerated: would you say that mass nominating fifty different articles for deletion in half as many minutes with the exact same one-sentence rationale is not bot-like? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
          Not entirely. I think it can be done by hand in that span of time, albeit it's a bit tedious. The use of "bot-like" in this context is questionable at best and objectionable at worst. But, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation of this remark, I'm more concerned about a broader pattern of misbehavior coming from MC. We should not mistake the forest for the trees. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        • @Liz: Can this be stopped, please? I've said everything I wanted to say and went away from this discussion, but HandThatFeeds and HyperAccelerated are still attacking me and are writing something strange in bold font. It looks like they have highjacked this discussion and are leading it to some very unusual outcome.
          P.S. I've actually found out how I "first met" Bgsu98 and I've posted my findings here on ANI, but then I deleted that post: . (I'm sorry, but Bgsu98's name looked to me like something from a random character generator. And I don't remember every sequence of characters I see on the internet. :-)) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
        • On ANI, when things aren't going your way, you don't get to say "please stop the discussion". Everyone's conduct is open to discussion here - including yours, and are writing something strange in bold font, when the only "bold font" used by (one of) them is the (very obvous) !vote to topic-ban you, is concerning. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    WITHDRAWN Probably being a bit too zealous here on the whole civility thing, so closing this before I feed the fire any more. (WP:TROUT me, I've become the very editor I swore to fight) Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    WP:BOOMERANG TBAN for Moscow Connection

    Uninvolved editor here. I don't know much about WP:NSKATE technicalities that brought this issue here. What I do know is that Moscow Connection conduct on here is clearly over the line, and suggests an inability to follow WP:NPA that suggests an inability to participate at AfD and a poor understanding of our deletion policy. Hence, I propose a topic ban from AfD. A word of personal advice for the user in question. If you have discovered new sources for an article previously deleted, first ask for an article to be restored to your user page, then improve the article, and then submit it through AfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Oppose. This would be for a grand total of three "incorrect" AFD !votes. That's it. Three. (1 / 2 / 3). Topic-banning an editor because there were three AFDs where they provided sources that were insufficient, whereas we have an editor at this discussion who was nominating potentially notable articles (and many notable articles) en masse without any search whatsoever, which included 50 AFDs in half as many minutes, is utterly ludicrous. This discussion should have been closed a long time ago with no action, or, if anything, a restriction on Bgsu98. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. While they have at times been obtuse in this ANI thread, they do not seem to have done any actual harm outside of it. I am opposed to the existence of a "thunderdome" area where people get summoned to do combat, yelled at by a dozen people for several days, and then banned if they happen to get mad during this.
    jp×g🗯️ 21:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. The user is highly passionate about the subject. That’s great - and to be quite blunt, we should be encouraging that. The user identified a problematic behavior (rapid AfD nominations that did not appear, at first, to be BEFOREd properly). From what I’ve seen, those issues have been resolved - both by the user reported agreeing to slow down on their nominations and explain them better, as well as by the MC realizing that many of the coverages they’ve found are borderline at best for determining notability.
    This thread got out of hand because people didn’t focus on the issue at hand. And I broadly agree with jpxg above - when rather than trying to refocus the thread people just pile on someone who made a good faith report, of course they’ll get a bit mad and make some mistakes that are borderline NPA/civility violations. But ask yourself this - is recommending a BOOMERANG for a problem that’s resolved not inflaming the situation more? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose As @BeanieFan11 said this discussion should have been closed a long time ago. @Moscow Connection has been very uncivil at times on this thread and others, particularly in their language and questioning of other editors' motives and abilities, but hopefully they will learn from what has been said during this discussion and will not repeat this behaviour. I was in favour of giving @Bgsu98 a chance and I do not want to be hypocritical by not doing so with MC too.
    Shrug02 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:GNG-failing articles

    User:Jaozinhoanaozinho has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH seems to be lacking substantially.

    Most recently there's Battle of Naband, which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.

    Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. I tried bringing this up with them but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to WP:WIKIHOUND someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a WP:PROFRINGE article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
    • 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
    • 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
    • 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
    • 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
    • 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
    • 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
    • 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
    Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.
    I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
    I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.
    Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
    A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".
    I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Support Ban.
    Sr. Blud (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with Gaming the system. Sr. Blud (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
    I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! Sr. Blud (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno. Sr. Blud (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead

    RowanElder has apologised and their comments have been explained. Jwa05002 ignored the first law of holes and has been indef'd with TPA revoked. Looks like we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This occurred on the Killing of Jordan Neely, on the talk page section of Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Threats in the lead. @RowanElder decided they could say I couldn't ask for civility in a discussion after it became what I found uncivil. This discussion was already ended. They made comments that I couldn't ask for civility because apparently my userpage was uncivil. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic and incompetent because they saw I mentioned I was Autistic on my page and then linked to the competence required article. (Personal attack removed) and then went on a rant about how Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow "severely mentally ill people edit" and how it's sad that Misplaced Pages has devolved to it. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help. I shouldn't need to say more really. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oh forgot to @Jwa05002 Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)
    • Akechi - typically, linking to specific WP:DIFFS rather than talk page sections is the best thing to do when making an ANI report; that is, linking and , which I assume are the comments you're referring to. Procedural niceties aside, I think you have a right to be upset - the comment by Jwa05002 seems to reflect a very ugly attitude toward mental illness, and RowanElder's remarks are incredibly patronizing - I don't think the comment in which they say I hope Misplaced Pages can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack. could have been more perfectly calculated to infuriate its target if that were their intention, and when they commented ...you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here it does not at all come across like someone who is AGFing. I hope the community will agree that the conduct of these two users is not acceptable and make that clear to them. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Who would have more relevant expertise than special education experts, here? Honestly? In dealing with good faith but disruptive contributions to something a lot like classwork?
      Please assume good faith for me as well, here. RowanElder (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      You cannot substitute your personal experience for reliable sources, nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to personal attacks such as disruptive incompetence. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am definitely confused about this.
      First, I have seen and been told "competence is required" many times and I generally assumed good faith constructive criticism and policy enforcement there rather than that the person invoking "competence is required" was making a personal attack. I have had a lot of trouble understanding what is regarded as incivility and not in this community.
      Second, it seems prima facie that editors do analyze one another frequently, for instance I was just analyzed and will be further analyzed in this incident notice discussion so long as it continues, so I am confused what you mean here. RowanElder (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      WP:CIR is an evaluation only when users have demonstrated repeated inability to edit collaboratively due to either refusal to read the rules, or inability comprehend them. It's not a blanket for you to insult a user by stating their edits are disruptive incompetence.
      Your second point is rhetorical wordplay, and does not reflect well on you. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't understand this and I'm not doing wordplay. I'm genuinely confused. But I'll knock it off anyway; I'm going to take a break. RowanElder (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      As a disabled person who currently works in special education, there are many reasons we wouldn't want "special education experts" (or their suggestions) dispatched to deal with a Certain Kind of Contributor. For one, it's a bit patronizing as described above--why do certain editors have to be dealt with under certain different people or rules? It's also worth noting that a lot of special education professionals, even ones who believe they're doing good things, often adopt practices that can be hurtful or problematic--this is all anecdotal, of course, but a number of my coworkers will miss very obvious potential causes of student distress just because they don't get distressed by the same thing, and at least one of my other coworkers was directly ableist to another of my coworkers behind her back without even realizing that's what she was doing. If there's anyone who can speak to best practices about interaction it's probably people with the disability in question (i.e. the Nothing about us without us stance), but to be honest, in practice, Misplaced Pages's existing guidelines and policies regarding user interaction and editing do a pretty good job of setting the ground rules and describing what you need to do to edit collaboratively in a productive way. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      My comments did not communicate my intent well to this community, and I have apologized for that. I recognize these concerns, and if I had written longer comments, adding these concerns would have been among my first extensions of what I wrote. I was disruptively incompetent when it came to speaking to the sensitivities in this community. RowanElder (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    (0) The discussion had seemed inconclusive to me rather than ended. My prior experience as an editor has been mostly on pages where weeks can go between talk messages easily, so if this was a mistake it was a newcomer's mistake of not understanding the different tempo on this page.
    (1) I did not say @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos could not ask for civility; I did find it ironic that they would ask for civility given that their userpage at that time seemed quite uncivil. I do think this indicates incompetence at judging civility and incivility and I, possibly erroneously, did not think it would be an aspersion or personal attack to say so on the basis of the immediate and policy-relevant (disruptive editing policy, explained by "competence is required") evidence. There is a "competence is required" principle and I have seen it invoked without violating the "no personal attacks" policy, though I'll be first to admit I don't understand the lines there very well.
    (2) I did not endorse or "go along with" @Jwa05002's characterization of @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos as schizophrenic: I passed over it in silence trying "not to take the bait" of what could have easily become personal attacks (not that I thought @Jwa05002 was making a personal attack there, more like personally despairing of the challenge of finding consensus about reality with self-identified schizophrenics and autistics). I flatly disagreed with @Jwa05002 that "this is what Misplaced Pages has become."
    (3) I do endorse a general principle that when mental illness compromises an editor's competence, they should not edit Misplaced Pages in the domains in which they are thereby incompetent. I do believe "competence is required" and I don't know why mental illness would possibly be an exception. (I can't imagine what fun I might have had editing in the archaeoastronomy area recently if Misplaced Pages did allow that exception!)
    (4) I do hope that the admins and arbs and the community as a whole will figure out good, humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages. RowanElder (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. RowanElder (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, of course: I did not call anyone mentally ill much less diagnose anyone. I pointed out that an editor self-identified as autistic without intending that to be an attack. And I won't even do that again, since "assuming good faith" is not extending to "assuming that references to mental illness are not necessarily attacks." Probably correctly, in retrospect for me! But the "assume good faith" policy has been something I've myself been incompetent to understand in its community-consensus application so far on Misplaced Pages, and so I was disruptively incompetent and I've both apologized for that and said I would avoid doing it again. RowanElder (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The user in question has described themselves as schizophrenic in previous posts. Schizophrenia by definition is a mental illness.
    Schizophrenia Jwa05002 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I didn't you are thinking of another user I will not name. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) (but I did the work, so I'm posting it) (Non-administrator comment) OP, you should provide diffs. You did link to the conversation, but every specific instance of untowardness you mention should be cited directly, as a courtesy to the admins' time. But I read the whole conversation and don't like it, so I did some legwork for you. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic. This edit was amended. Jwa proceeded to come in and say I was a schizophrenic. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help.
    I view assuming an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence to not actually be WP:AGF, but I defer. I don't know that this warrants being at ANI or if it's just bad behavior, but the schizophrenia thing certainly deserves an apology from both of them. I'm not involved. Just providing diffs. POST EDIT CONFLICT: I also don't buy Rowan's argument that they weren't going along with the schizophrenia thing. closhund/talk/ 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    "You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? RowanElder (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not generically assume "an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence" but specifically suggested that their social judgment about particular incivility was incompetent in this case. I would never do the former, and frankly it is an aspersion to suggest I did. RowanElder (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. RowanElder (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    "You obviously have never met an Autistic person" is wildly uncivil, ungrounded, personal attack. I am really lost here. RowanElder (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry I didn't give diffs I'm kinda new to this stuff. Thank you for putting in the effort as well. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, you are revealing a lot of personal information here about other editors that might need to be revision deleted. Please do not do that in the future. There are a lot of BLP violations in this discussion so far and assumptions about "mental illness" as well that are distressing to see from other editors. But, Akechi, I also notice that you are spending all of your talk on your User page and talk pages like Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely instead of editing to improve articles. Your own User page states I'd rather not edit Misplaced Pages and rather just discuss disputes, move requests and talk about usage of sources or claims of bias, I'm not very good at source editing which is not a good sign for an editor on this project. Jwa05002 is also spending all of their time on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely so maybe you both could use a partial block from this talk page. Liz 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am also looking to get into editing articles, though I do not have the time to be a full time editor. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Those comments by @RowanElder and @Jwa05002 are beyond the pale. Stating that mental illness or neurodivergence is a WP:CIR issue should never be tolerated, particularly given it's highly likely that a lot of our community are neurodiverse or mentally ill. Blocks should follow for both editors. TarnishedPath 07:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. Liz 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given that the editors seem a lot more interested in arguing on talk pages, I'd suggest there's some WP:NOTHERE going on. TarnishedPath 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I made exactly this point that there are a lot on Misplaced Pages in one of my comments about a likely unintended consequence of @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos's incivility on their userpage, which, I quote, included "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." RowanElder (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    And no the lack of am is not a typo. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please assume good faith! Autism did not upset me and nor did pansexuality. But "I hope I upset people who do not share my values" cannot possibly be civil discourse. RowanElder (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not my values it's my existence, being Autistic or Pansexual isn't values, it's just how I am. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    At Special:Diff/1269116979 you wrote: "I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see Misplaced Pages:Competence is required". I don't see any other interpretation for that than an act with malice directed towards a neurodiverse editor because of their neurodivergence. TarnishedPath 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that because autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." RowanElder (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was not assuming that you could not. I saw what I thought was a terrible misjudgment that @Jwa05002 was struggling to see in any good faith way and suggesting a way to recover good faith, but without excusing the brazen incivility I thought I saw. RowanElder (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not say mental illness is in itself a WP:CIR issue. I said that, at times, particular mental illness will imply particular WP:CIR issues. What in the world is going on? RowanElder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Jwa heavily implied and you didn't call him out. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've quoted exactly what you said above just now. You don't have much wiggle room there. TarnishedPath 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and exculpatory! RowanElder (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not social blindnesses it's a sometimes struggle to pick up on social cues (Autistic people display a range of symptoms and some differ), also cool you do think I can't make social judgements. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your ill-founded judgments aren't doing you any favours here. You should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi and then having the good sense to shut up before someone starts a block discussion. TarnishedPath 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. RowanElder (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's absolutely the way literally everybody else has taken it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. RowanElder (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    (I repeated a variant of this apology below, more personally to @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, and Akechi graciously accepted the apology there. Thanks again @The Bushranger.) RowanElder (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, WP:BLP policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is The Agent Of Chaos, I find that far more troubling than the other self-declarations. The most generous interpretation is that the editor is trying too hard to be ironic and amusing, like the new hipster pizzeria in my home town that actually makes great innovative pizzas. But combined with the other self-declarations, I am confronted with legitimate questions about what this editor's goals and intentions actually are here, and I should remind the editor that actual agents of chaos get blocked pretty promptly on Misplaced Pages. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Like it's my name, I know there is an editor that has The Liar at the end of their username do we assume they are one. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm just stating my mental disabilities dude why is this a problem, are you gonna get mad at my userbox that says the same thing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. TarnishedPath 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm going to stop talking now. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      For the admins' consideration, this reply is (I hope) partly because of me . So it sounds like they're willing to take advice. closhund/talk/ 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you want to be helpful, start copy editing articles or review the recent changes log looking for vandalism that needs reverting (make sure you set the filters appropriately) or anything that directly assists with the quality of articles. If you don't do at least something to help with building the project, it won't take long for others to decide that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia TarnishedPath 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks to Closhund's suggestions I actually started copy editing, it's not that scary anymore. I think I was just overwhelmed with editing massive cyclopedia. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      This is an interesting point - I posted a userbox saying I have ADHD, along with liking videogames and cats, as I see it as a part of me that I absolutely hated for decades until I was diagnosed recently. I posted it as a way to perhaps ask for a little patience, as I might be more prone to long posts or changing my edits after having another thought or idea (impulse control is an issue with ADHD). In my case, I intended it as an explanation, not an excuse. I still really and expect to be treated the same as anyone else.
      Nevertheless, I angered someone earlier, who weaponised my ADHD and used it to claim I was incompetent and shouldn't be here. Quite a few admins were singled out in those posts, but they specifically focused on my ADHD for an inordinate amount of time. They were also cut and pasted into other people's Talk pages.
      Whilst I'm well aware this was a malicious user and am not ashamed of my ADHD, nor will I hide it (I've done that for far too long), I'm now thinking I should remove those boxes - this is the internet, you can't tell what other people are thinking and it's easy to misunderstand others.
      Neurodivergence is a relatively-new condition (compared to depression, anxiety etc. it's only really been accepted in the past few decades), so there are a lot of misunderstandings and stigma attached to it. The prevalence of self-diagnosis and misinformation on social media doesn't help, as there are those who do want attention and/or use it as an excuse.
      I'm not sure what I'm going to do to be honest. I might remove the userboxes since they're apparently doing more harm than good. I've got to work now, but I'll decide later & just wanted to put this view forward. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      BTW Apologies if this is now off-topic, the thread was moving really fast! Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Blue Sonnet, userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. Liz 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz Exactly right - I was aware of the negative perception, but someone who's looking for a reason to dislike another person will usually pick up on stuff like that first since it's an easy target. My workplace has been incredibly supportive so I've been letting my guard down, but that's not really a good idea online. Plus the userboxes were all shiny & colourful so I headed straight for them without thinking!
    I don't know if I'll keep the ADHD box since it may be doing more harm than good but the cat one will stay for now, since my furry demonic familiar demands it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    With due respect, Cullen, I very strongly disagree with you when you say "They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment". This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way and arguably a failure to AGF. Since neurodivergent people are quite literally defined by their neurotypes, this is no more or less self-identifying than, for example, gender orientation declarations; both are useful for editors wishing to meet, work with, and, importantly, take advice from editors who share identities and thus can relate. I second what Liz says below.
    I have no comment on this particular situation otherwise as an apology appears to have been made. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you don't mind, I've apologized and I meant it, and I'm trying to understand what I could have done differently at a finer grain than "never engage about any issue of mental health with respect to competence on Misplaced Pages again," which will be my safety-first default from here until I do get better understanding.
    This reply confused me, and if I can ask without being seen to be hunting for chinks in armor or trying to litigate after the issue is resolved or anything like that, @Jasper Deng, was this meant to be a disagreement that They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, i.e., a disagreement that that particular form of ableist prejudice exists? Or is it a disagreement with the prejudice, and thus an implicit attribution of the prejudice to @Cullen328? The latter did not seem like the most natural good faith reading of @Cullen328's comment, but the former doesn't make sense to me together with This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way since it doesn't seem sensible that recognizing the fact of ableist prejudice would be in itself ableist (it seems the opposite, that recognizing such prejudices exist is often part of fighting such prejudices).
    I've been incompetent at judging what people would interpret of my posts so far, and if I'm being incompetent in this interpretation in this reply in some blameworthy way I'll happily apologize for this as well, but I'm genuinely lost and would appreciate some more light on this if it's not a pain to provide it. RowanElder (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of those and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @Jasper Deng would have said that together with I very strongly disagree with you when I didn't see @Cullen328 necessarily endorsing the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" in their original comment, just the belief "they are often perceived as claims for preferential treatment," which would not itself imply @Cullen328 has or agrees with that perception. RowanElder (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your prior reply, and don't worry about this one after all. I'm going to stop trying to engage here and stop trying to figure out my confusion, I've had enough. RowanElder (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Cullen328 To be entirely fair, the phrase "Agent of Chaos" is fairly common in various forms of media and seems more likely to be a reference to something (like one of these, or this, or this, etc.) than an indicator that the user is acting in bad faith. CambrianCrab (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    CambrianCrab, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would you like me to change my name if it concerns you that much Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I get like username policy and names shouldn't imply intent to troll and stuff but if we actually enforced that tons of people would have to change their usernames, once again I know a user that has The Liar at the end of their name but they aren't one. I feel like the most reasonable assumption is that my username is either a joke or a reference, as it is both. I feel like it's not assuming of good faith to think I'm an actual agent of chaos just because my username says I am. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cullen, I think this is reaching. Just as my name is a play on words, Agent of Chaos is also a tongue in cheek username that does not strike me as indicative of the user's intent to cause harm. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree this is reaching and one thing i hate is when people try to find something completely unrelated and throw a fit about it •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cyberwolf is fiction so… •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mental illness can create a competency issue in pretty much any aspect of life. For example, a person can be found too mentally ill to stand trial in a court. I’m not sure why wikipedia should be an exception.
    It’s unfortunate and sad for sure, but it’s simply a fact that some people are too mentally ill to be objective, reasonable, and yes even competent.
    Obviously there are varying degrees of mental illness, and some are able to control it better than others. But there should definitely be a threshold where reasonable can say “this person is too mentally ill to edit” Jwa05002 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that's not a judgement any complete stranger can make over the internet, including on Misplaced Pages. You could definitely call attention to disputed content or problematic conduct without making the assumption that it's connected to the disability of someone you do not know personally based on what you think you know about a specific editor, their disability, or how the latter affects the former. People can definitely come to consensuses that users cannot edit constructively without needing to declare that it's because they have a specific disability. Connecting the two like that is very likely to instead come across as (and/or be) a personal attack. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos I apologize completely and unreservedly for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by you (and everyone else who has said something here so far, but especially by you because your feelings were the ones hurt) as saying that you were less competent than other editors because you were autistic.
    That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. RowanElder (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, I accept your apology Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The bottom line is that every single editor is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will keep that in mind Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Once Jwa receives this I won't get involved. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for that grace. RowanElder (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've meant it from the beginning that I didn't intend to use @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos's autism as a disqualification of them. I considered the incivility disqualifying and I considered their comments about civility to show additional disqualifying incompetence of social judgment, and then I intended to highlight their self-identified autism as a possible way of reconciling the incivility and incompetence with good faith to cool and stop the uncivil running conflict with @Jwa05002 (who I thought was also responsible for incivility and making poor judgment calls, such as moving from the specific/local frustration about incompetence and incivility (actually blameworthy) to general/global frustration with neurodivergence (not blameworthy)).
      This I now see was naive and strongly against community norms, in particular viewed as unacceptably patronizing and ableist in itself, and so I'm not going to do that again here and I do find it easy to make a complete and genuine apology for having broken those norms.
      In my friendships and collaborations with autistic people in offline life, I will continue to do what has made my friendships and collaborations with them work so far. This sometimes does include very direct conversation about when to step away from fights when someone is missing social cues, but in my context it is rarely blamably patronizing or ableist to do so since there's an already strong expectation of respect for neurodivergence (and in the rare cases it is blamably patronizing or ableist, I also listen to that and stop as quickly as possible, like I am here). One of my main takeaways here is that on Misplaced Pages, the general patterns of unwanted but de facto incivility mean that there is not strong expectation that people do already respect the neurodivergent, in fact the reverse: a pretty strong expectation that communication that could be disrespect for the neurodivergent is disrespect for the neurodivergent. That seems true (that too many people don't respect neurodivergence) and important, and insofar as I wasn't already seeing it, it was because I was tripping over the "assume good faith" policy trying not to assume others were prejudiced against the neurodivergent and/or disrespecting the neurodivergent (since that seemed like it would be assuming bad faith).
      I don't yet understand how to reconcile "assume good faith" and "proactively defend people from systemic prejudices" very well. Off of Misplaced Pages I just don't assume good faith! It's something I think a lot of contemporary American political discourse has been choking on, and I think it'll be worth my time to continue thinking about it with this additional information from this experience. RowanElder (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hey to be honest this is a model example on how to apologize on and explain your behavior and how you want to improve here. This is what we need more of. I read through your apology several times and can’t detect bad faith from you. You’ve done well and I’ll admit working with neurodivergent individuals can be/will be challenging w/o pretty much whole life experience. I’ve made mistakes. We all will. :3 •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thank you, this means a lot. I was worried it was just being taken as more bad faith when I wasn't getting other replies earlier. I've had a terrible time here and I need a break. RowanElder (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      No you did great •Cyberwolf•talk? 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks. Really, I do mean it. Still, on my own terms I don't feel at all good and I should take some time away. RowanElder (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      wikipedians who are in this big of ani and are the subjects, should take a big break this is the most scary stressful and some what notorious page •Cyberwolf•talk? 00:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    While I can't comment on @RowanElder as I've not interacted with them, I will note that I already reported @Jwa05002 concerning (in part) some of these issues about a month ago. People wanting to judge any misbehavior, with full context, may want to read the talk page discussion where I engaged with them on it, as well as the aforementioned report itself, which has specific diffs (all of this was when my username was LaughingManiac).
    For full disclosure, since I was fairly heavily involved at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely and promised to disengage to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING, I'll attempt to refrain from getting too deep into this particular discussion. It also bears mentioning that I ended up retracting the report myself, as can be seen above. Part of it was based on my own experience as a mentally ill person and expectations concerning how the topic be handled, and I found that Jwa05002 made a valid point that personal experience cannot dictate neutral Misplaced Pages editing, something which seemed supported by Misplaced Pages's second pillar, specifically the last sentence. So, I closed the report (with the - I assumed - mutual understanding that there would be no more aspersions on Jwa05002's part), and disengaged.
    I can say that my personal view of this subject is that there were problematic undertones both in how Jordan Neely's mental illness had been weaponized by Penny's defense, as well as in how it was being discussed on the talk page. I found Jwa05002's own mentions and utilization of the topic very offensive, to me personally, which is (in part) why I disengaged, since because I was personally affected in this case, I felt it would be difficult for me to participate neutrally. On a semi-related point, I do feel that Misplaced Pages in general would benefit from stricter guidelines concerning "personal experiences" beyond merely dismissing them, given that the manner in which some of the content in cases like these is treated, as well as the overt and rampant generalizations or prejudiced discourse against already vulnerable populations, may well discourage marginalized editors from contributing. But, this is ultimately a different topic that would be better suited for the village pump.
    I will also mention, however, that it'd be rather disappointing in my view if a comment like this one (which to me reads like a personal attack, never even mind that the notion that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages is deeply troubling to me) is allowed to stand.
    EDIT: For fuller disclosure, I will note that I was pinged to this discussion by Akechi mentioning me, in diffs like this one. I'm unsure whether this counts as CANVASSING? Hopefully not - my intent here is merely to provide context concerning a dispute in which I was originally involved in, which seems relevant, if not identical, to this one in my eyes. NewBorders (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know little about the Jordan Neely case, and have not investigated it in particular, but have to give a few words about Misplaced Pages editing by people who are mentally ill or neurodivergent. I have a mental illess (I don't know if it's severe enough for Jwa05002, but I lost about half my working life because of it), and, largely through that, I know plenty of people with autism, ADHD and schizophrenia. I don't choose to display my mental status on my user page, but reveal it when relevant. I just checked and a have made nearly 49,000 edits since 2007. I don't think anyone has spotted my mental condition in all that time, because I take reponsibility for my editing and do not edit when I'm not up to it. If all the people with a mental illess or neurodivergence left Misplaced Pages it would be a much poorer place, and might not even exist. Some people with those conditions are very good editors, and some are not so good, just like "normal" people. I hope we can accept such people just as we can accept people of different genders, nationalities, sexual preferences etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are absolutely varying degrees of mental illness and it wasn’t my intention to imply anyone who suffers from a mental illness should not edit Misplaced Pages pages.
    in this case, my comment was directed at one specific editor.
    its unfortunate for sure, but some people simply aren’t capable of being objective and reasonable enough to edit pages.
    this admin page is full of examples of users being blocked from editing because they simply aren’t able to handle the responsibility that comes with it. Jwa05002 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Have I displayed any of that because you've kinda been urging me to stop being on the talk page for a while because of my extreme bias, which I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. This just seems like you found a more reasonable way to try and get me to stop editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Jwa05002, rather than defending your comments on the article's talk page you should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi. TarnishedPath 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I went back and looked through that entire discussion (about schizophrenia) and I see that there were 2 different editors besides me during the conversation.
    so I do apologize for conflating the two of you (Akechi and whoever the other editor was)
    I honestly did not realize Akechi was not the editor who volunteered they had a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s for sure my mistake. Akechi, I apologize for implying you’d been diagnosed with a mental illness. Jwa05002 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.
    Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles. Jwa05002 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is not you're decision to make and mental illnesses can vary in condition, we judge people's actions not how they were born. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Jwa05002, I know many people with schizophrenia who would be perfectly capable of writing Misplaced Pages articles. We block/ban people because of what they do on Misplaced Pages, not because of whether they happen to have a broken leg, cancer or schizophrenia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just stating one more time that I never agreed with this position. RowanElder (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, just in case anyone finds it meaningful I'll reaffirm my commitment to these principles as well. I specifically avoided "severe enough" language because I don't think any "overall amount" would be relevant. I spoke about impacts on specific, relevant domains. Someone can be dealing with crippling catatonic panic attacks or having outright hallucinations offline and also still be participating in Misplaced Pages constructively and valuably when they're up for it. All my evidence is that both have in fact happened in real cases, constructively and for the best. My primary principle here was that editors should not contribute where they are disruptively incompetent for any reason, with mental illness simply not a special reason (and similarly for forms of neurodivergence I don't actually like to conflate with flat "mental illness", such as many forms of autism spectrum conditions). RowanElder (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just came across this and i would like to say excuse my language what the fuck is this behavior. The correlations in the talk page are absolutely ridiculous and are all blatant attacks. I’m ignoring if akechi is right or wrong that doesn’t matter(to me). These attacks are not only focused on akechi but all neurodivergent contributors to Misplaced Pages. It’s disheartening that this happens. What does schizophrenia have to do with a users ability to edit. This place is for everyone who wants to contribute (within policy of course). those who degrade users because of who they are, they are trying to push people who they deem not to be “normal”. The fucking disrespect makes my blood boil. As someone who made a mistake which was directly related to my mental problems. If i was attacked for That behavior you bet I wouldn’t have held back my anger as much as akechi did. As a neurodivergent person and one who takes care of other neurodivergents. These people are more than helpful to the Misplaced Pages they all have certain content hyperfixations planes, military, cars, racing, boats you name it. Everyone has a purpose here. Shame on those who think otherwise •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also if you would like @Jwa05002 please explain why you think schizophrenia prohibits users from being competent.
    In my experience with a schizophrenic friend most of his schizophrenia is just seeing scary things. He is smart he does well in school. Tell me why he couldn’t contribute •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Block proposal - Jwa05002

    I have Indefinitely blocked Jwa05002 per consensus here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I propose an indef block for Jwa05002 as consequence of their statements at Special:Diff/1269119175 where they wrote

    Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Misplaced Pages articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Misplaced Pages has devolved into. It’s sad really"

    and then at Special:Diff/1269339244 where they just wrote

    I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles. Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles.

    All of the editors contributions, bar one which was an edit they shouldn't have been making per WP:ARBECR, are at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it therefore appears that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. TarnishedPath 05:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Not sure if I can place any votes because of my involvement but @Jwa05002 has in my opinion been trying to scare some user away from comment on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, including me where they said (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#c-Jwa05002-20250101224800-Akechi_The_Agent_Of_Chaos-20241230034200)
    "Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes." in what could be seen as an attempt to scare me away from things. I don't know what Jwa was talking about because if you look at my comments on the talk page it was mostly trying to explain WP:killing of to people. The personal bias I can only assume was my disagreeing with them on the move request, as that is all I can think of. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Query Should we let Jwa know that there is a indef block proposal, like on his talk page, it seems we haven't given him any heads up and I think we probably should. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just left a message on his talk page just giving him a heads up. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You already let them know they were being discussed here at the very start of this conversation. TarnishedPath 09:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Addition- policy revival and reform

    wikipedia:Discrimination (failed proposal) is a proposal that failed in 2009 and I have seen too much of this happening which just goes underwhelmingly to Wp:personal attacks. But these aren’t personal only the discrimination against one person is discrimination against the users of Misplaced Pages who were basically attacked. I think its needed as the everyday change of politics in the us. The draft will be remade of course. This is just my test the waters on potential proposals which I would like to make. •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    WP:VPP would be the place for future policy proposals, but we already have precedent with treating discriminatory speech (aka misgendering and racial slurs) as WP:DISRUPTIVE. Users have been blocked on that basis over the last few years, wouldn't hurt to codify it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you get the ball rolling at VPP I imagine you'd find a lot of people who would like to improve Misplaced Pages's systematic handling of discriminatory actions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’ll start to draft a thing for village pump tonight thanks •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    user:Cyberwolf/discriminationpropdraft Been working on this dis regard my horrible format its word vomit •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is what made my blood boil with these interactions that they weren't just personal attacks but descrimination against a whole class of Misplaced Pages editors. I think policy here would be most welcome. Please ping me when you put up a proposal. TarnishedPath 23:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Special:PermanentLink/1269831022#A discrimination policy Here •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk page misuse (Jwa05002)

    Talk-page access yanked by Moneytrees. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This says it all. Talk page access needs to be yanked.

    It's sad though that they misread "<disorder> is characterized by <x, y, z, ...>" as "everyone with <disorder> has all of <x, y, z...> to the point that it makes them incompetent to edit". --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Moneytrees, please see above comment by Jasper. TarnishedPath 05:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh brother…. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Sairamb1407 has made 299 dummy edits to their user-space and many non substantial edits to other articles and have gamed their way into the extended confirmed user group. in order to edit the EC protected Republic TV , consider revoking their ECR until they make 500 legitimate edits. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    I note that this editor made their 502nd edit to an extended confirmed protected article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have revoked their EC permission. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their talk page is full of warnings saying they may be blocked without further warning if they do some vandalism again. That user has only been here for a month... Just FYI. Nakonana (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rahulbasuzoom not being here and potentially other issues

    SOCK BLOCKS Socks tossed in the dryer. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Reporting on Rahulbasuzoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Almost their entire editing history consists of overlinking. They have been warned for this but still continue with this behavior even today by adding wikilinks to countries, words like "musician", more countries while making one edit per country, rivers where there's already a wikilink in the preceding sentence, the "British Empire" on a series that takes place in contemporary UK? etc.


    I think the user is trying to get to extended-confirmed status for Indian topics by gaming the system. Aside from the editing pattern, my suspicion is based on the fact that they made an edit request in that direction (if I accidentally got the wrong diff here, then the next diff should be the right one). When seeing that edit request, I also noticed another one on that talk page by Sairamb1407 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who recently got their extended-confirmed status revoked for gaming the system). I had undone several cases of Rahulbasuzoom's overlinking, so I saw the history of some of the pages they edited and that's why Sairamb1407's username struck me as familiar because those two editors appear to have quite the overlap in editing interests and editing patterns, particularly on Republic TV (where they made their edit requests) and the sub-channels of Republic TV. Examples: Republic Kannada, Republic Bangla, Republic Bharat. I suspect an undisclosed COI for both users, if not a case of meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Some of their edits have been removed for being puff pieces. (Sorry I didn't think of saving a diff for that and it's tricky to get one after I started writing this report, because I'm on mobile.)


    This is my first report, sorry if made any mistakes. Nakonana (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Here are examples of unsourced puff pieces added by Rahulbasuzoom for your convenience:. Nakonana (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    And here are diffs for Sairamb1407's adding of puff pieces to the same article: . Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Me (DragonofBatley)

    It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save @KJP1: the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notifying other editors from the wider discussions @PamD:, @Noswall59:, @Rupples:, @Crouch, Swale:, @KeithD:, @SchroCat:, @Tryptofish:, @Cremastra: and @Voice of Clam:. If I missed anyone else sorry DragonofBatley (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also this discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1269282704#Dragon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. I'm glad to see that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
    I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. WP:JAN25 is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, then we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
    I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to draft articles in userspace and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
    Happy editing, Cremastra (u — c) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as User:DragonofBatley/Interesting topics list. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    These are good points.
    However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI-like thing may be in order. WP:Failed verification cleanup project, anyone? Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • DragonofBatley has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will DragonofBatley (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @DragonofBatley: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for All Saints Church, Wellington. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see any new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      (edit conflict) KJP1 has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you All Saints Church, Wellington. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's a great point, you're right, @SchroCat. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I responded to @Voorts earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with WP:Geoland WP:Notability and WP:Sourcing. Also conflict edit was not directed at @SchroCat, there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's All Saints Church, Wellington was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from Listed buildings in Wellington, Shropshire and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
      And Dragon's version as submitted to AfC also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. PamD 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    The issues are Verifiability and source integrity; Notability; and the suggestion of Sockpuppetry while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.

    Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, Talk:All Saints Church, Wellington, which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises Competency issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.

    That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. KJP1 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. Rupples (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    @DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    @DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @Rupples or @Voorts. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @Schazjmd and @SchroCat's earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the WP:V and WP:N concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC).

    As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban.
    There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
    Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.
    For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, this needs to be a final warning in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -Noswall59 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

    (I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at User talk:DragonofBatley.) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked. PamD stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular Crouch, Swale. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (their talk page in July 2023). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point WP:CIR has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.)

    • Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: 'Woods Bank is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with Dragon's work on it: he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
    • Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content here calling it "irrelevant". At User talk:KJP1, PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article St Peter and St Paul Church, Caistor, as he left it, cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, All Saints Church, Wellington, the entire Architecture section was added by other(s). However, their church articles always contain something like The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings. sourced to achurchnearyou.com, often as a separate "Present day" section. DragonofBatley's version of All Saints' Church, Batley (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs. (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing St Augustine of Canterbury, Rugeley and St Augustine's Church, Rugeley, both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.)
    • Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as here, was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
    • Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.

    There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note Liz has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that Woods Bank instance (at the end of this edit, which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. Cremastra (u — c) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd like to point to WP:Zeroth law of Misplaced Pages: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
    I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at User_talk:KJP1#Dragon and Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity, and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.
    I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
    Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for Chew Stoke, which is also the example of a lead in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
    Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - removing a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and taking an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
    The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, All Saints Church, Wellington (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
    It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
    Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. PamD 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work

    I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've got some experience of CCI investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the 400-odd articles that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
    To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    voorts - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    How's this draft proposal: DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace, converting redirects to articles, or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
    Having seen Dragon's work on Holme Lacy yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
    And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. PamD 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cremastra - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hold on. This goes much further than @Voorts wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? Rupples (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
    1. No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
    2. No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
    3. No editing in mainspace.
    PamD 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
    Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
    Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
    Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
    The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    p.s. Trafford this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? Rupples (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @KJP1 and @Rupples: option C amended below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? PamD 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)

    DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):

    Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
    Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD.
    Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.

    The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Uninvolved editors

    Involved editors

    @KJP1, Cremastra, Rupples, PamD, DragonofBatley, Crouch, Swale, SchroCat, Tryptofish, and Noswall59. (Apologies if I missed anyone.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also support option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. Oppose option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose all, as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • C if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Stalking from @Iruka13

    This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user Iruka13.

    I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as my post, @Netherzone has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @Star Mississippi for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us.

    As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @Iruka13 for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

    If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterspeterson (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka here. My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. Star Mississippi 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to Gish gallop and Brandolini's law, where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because WP:AGF. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) MolecularPilot 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am reproducing the comment from File talk:Kraven-comparison.jpg here:

    Do you even know what is significant for an article and what is not? Where in authoritative sources is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right? And let's be simpler, ok? — Ирука 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

    voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit.
    The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @Netherzone feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's the process of one after the other, after the other.
    If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images.
    As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
    If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) MolecularPilot 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add (edit conflict))! :) MolecularPilot 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi. Yes. This file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
    If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream.
    Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to WP:DRV. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? MolecularPilot 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Misplaced Pages at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go.
    Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat.
    But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over?
    That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue.
    Plus, as pointed out by @TheTechnician27, tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Three* but nonetheless correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e
    Voorts, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." Drmies (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think User:Pppery agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if User:Bagumba, User:Zanahary, User:TheTechnician27, and User:Kingsif have any additional insight. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their nomination of File:Diab al-Mashi.png was not correct. The file had a nominally large pixel size, but was very compressed. When I removed their tag for the image to be shrunk, they nominated it for speedy deletion, which makes no sense and is clearly retaliatory. They tagged it as being an entire work uploaded when an excerpt would do, when they knew it was a single compressed frame from a 44 minute film. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say that their tagging of the file for speedy deletion was totally incorrect and made no sense given the size of the original file that was uploaded; the close to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png and the closing administrator's removal of the {{Non-free no reduce}} template you added to the file's page and the closing administrator's re-adding of the the {{Non-free reduce}} template originally added by Iruka13. For reference, Voorts, who's an administrator, did !vote delete in the FFD, but for a different reason; the file ultimately was kept, but it was reduced. You disagreed with the tagging of the file for reduction by Iruka13 but, for some reason, don't seem to have an issue with the closing administrator who did exactly the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I forgot about that discussion. I don't think it makes me involved here, but I'm not planning on taking action at this point anyways. If any evidence of a continuing problem had been presented, as I've asked numerous times, I would have blocked, but the allegations of stalking are based on very thin evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Marchjuly, you don’t know what I don’t have an issue with. I still think there was no reason for the bot reduction of the file. The relevance of the reduction tagging is in the fact that “this file should be kept and altered” cannot lead to “this file should be deleted” without some major change in opinion, which Iruka never explained—hence my belief that it was just a lashing-out, as I believe is evidenced by the fact that their tag alleging that the file interferes with the market role of the original work and that the still is a complete work from which an excerpt could be taken instead was completely false and never explained—still never explained, actually. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Four of your uploads (the one discussed above, File:True Panther logo.png, File:Teniky inner sandstone wall 1940-41.jpg and File:Déluge au Pays du Baas poster.jpeg) were all uploaded at sizes considered big enough to be tagged by a bot for reduction almost within a day of being uploaded. The file discussed here was tagged by a bot here, but you removed the tag here and added a "Non-free no reduce" template here; perhaps you thought that resolved things. Iruka13 removed the "Non-free free no reduce" template here asking for a reason, and you re-added it here. I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again and led to accusations of edit warring. The file was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3b, each of which are reasons related to WP:NFCC. You then started the discussion about the file, first on its talk page and then at FFD, and Iruka did respond on both pages. None of the above seems to seems (at least to me) to clearly indicate any type of retaliaton against you by Iruka13; rather, it seems like something not too uncommon when it comes to disagreements over non-free files, and it also seems to have been resolved as such. If you can demonstrate that Iruka13 did similar things with respect to your other file uploads or uploads by others, then that might indicate a pattern of some kind; their interaction with you, however, seems to have been civil and seems to have ended with the FFD. Finally, the "Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice" used in the {{di-fails NFCC}} template is boilerplate text added when a template's |3b= parameter is set as |3b=yes; so, that's the default option when using that template. Personally, I might've just skipped that template and gone to FFD instead, but different strokes for different folks, and, once again, I don't see tagging the file for speedy deletion as being a retaliatory act. Iruka13 can't delete files and any files they tag for speedy deletion are going to be ultimately reviewed by an administrator, and it's possible that the file would've ended up at FFD based on that review. If you've got issues with the bot tagging the file for reduction, the bot operator is probably the best person to express them to. Similarly, if you feel the FFD close was incorrect, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    > I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again
    And therein lies the point because you shouldn’t have to guess. Iruka could actually engage with editors on a polite, peer-to-peer, basis.
    Instead, there is no engagement. It’s tag, move on; tag, move on - dozens of times a day, every day. And should anyone dare engage, they get wikilawyered, or threats such as:
    > Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
    All from a user who, by their own admission, has multiple bans for harassment. Which is, at least from my standing, why I and others feel bullied and harassed. After all it is someone who’ll openly tell you that’s how they behave, knowing full well they get welcomed back to do it again. Peterspeterson (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    You cannot nominate a file for deletion because you think your tag is going to be removed. That is not a deletion rationale. I don’t care about establishing a pattern of behavior for this user—I’m just saying that they tagged a file for deletion because they got annoyed that their NFR tag got reverted, and that is a problem. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You can, however, nominate or tag a non-free file for deletion if you feel it fails to meet allone of the ten non-free content use criteria. Iruka13 listed two criteria that they felt the non-free use failed; you disagreed with their assessment and the file ended up being discussed at FFD. That's a fairly common occurrence when it comes to disagreements over non-free use, and doesn't necessarily mean anyone was annoyed or trying to retaliate. The fact that the non-free file was kept but also reduced, also doesn't mean they were totally incorrect in their assessment, at least with respect to NFCC#3b. You posted above that I don't know what you have an issue with, yet you're quick to assume that Iruka13's tagging of the file just had to be done to get back at you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC); post edited. -- 03:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Peterspeterson & @TheTechnician27: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - here. This was tagged last week and deleted today.
    Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart.
    Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time.
    Instead, it's drip-drip-drip.
    On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @Netherzone Peterspeterson (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    The instructions at the top of this page state: Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem (emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask.
    The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag.
    I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to?
    Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act?
    The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted):
    voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK @Voorts & @TheTechnician27- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying.
    On 12 Nov, File:Kraven-comparison.jpg was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK.
    On 22 Nov, File:AvXduo.jpeg was nominated.
    On 3 Dec File:Daredevilcomparison.jpeg was nominated.
    On 6 Jan File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was nominated. This is the most dubious of all.
    These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.
    Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message:
    > Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
    Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations.
    Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking?
    And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing.
    I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says
    > Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
    and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have
    > 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects
    Link: User talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100
    That's in *their own words*. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once. There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "laboratory" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that?
    I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a Gish gallop where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please provide diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. Edit history and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    "I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."
    Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 Peterspeterson (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    The stuff in this thread is basically de rigueur for this user: my past experiences with Iruka13 and file deletion have consisted of extremely bizarre wikilawyering, to the point where I felt like it bordered on deliberate trolling. I do not understand why this editor is permitted to waste so much of people's time with obviously vexatious nominations. jp×g🗯️ 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the key element here is if the nominations were "obviously vexatious", I mean the ones that sparked this ANI were all accepted by the deleting admin, and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama. I wonder if there's a tool on toolforge or smth to calculate accepted vs denied CSDs/FfD noms which may paint a better picture, but from a spot check I just did of both CSD and FfD this are mostly either accepted by the deleting admin or the raised issues are resolved. MolecularPilot 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    To my understanding this ANI is mainly about a) the volume of CSDs and FfDs and b) the user's laboratory. I don't think anyone is arguing that the nominations were actually meritless or vexatious, and those who said they were "wrong" may want to take that up with the deleting admin or WP:DRV because it's not like this user is mass-tagging and it's being declined... most of the time issues are resolved or the admin agrees and speedily deletes/the FfD closes as delete. MolecularPilot 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    > and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama
    You’ve guessed that this is their motivation - and your guess is equally as valid as my assertion that this is stalking.
    In fact, much of various admins’ attempts at justification throughout this thread is guesswork - all of which has had to occur because Iruka does not engage with other users on a polite peer-to-peer basis. There is no “paper trail” to say “this is what they actually meant”. As has been evidenced and pointed out by multiple editors. Peterspeterson (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you continue to assert this is stalking with no evidence, I will block you for personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, I will simply ask you how do you know tags
    > were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama
    Have you guessed? Or has Iruka stated this anywhere? Peterspeterson (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    All of the files that he tagged that you uploaded were deleted. There is no rule that prohibits someone from nominating files for deletion spaced apart. At this point, it just feels like you're seeking revenge for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're guessing my intention the same way you're guessing Iruka's.
    "Revenge" isn't my intention at all. Revenge for what? If the files were legitimately deleted, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to me.
    However, the spacing of the reports felt - and feel - like harassment. (I'm being clear that it *felt* like harassment because I don't want to be banned for what you assert are personal attacks).
    Even with that *feeling*, I would have moved on were it not for the fact that other people were reporting very similar things on the user's Talk page. And then, with a small amount of checking, it seems that Iruka has admitted to harassing other users at various points in the past. And, from what others have said, Iruka has already been banned on multiple occasions, from multiple places, for precisely that. (I don't actually know if this is true).
    So my *feeling* of being harassed was in fact legitimised by others feeling the same - and apparent past behaviour. Hence this.
    On the files being deleted, for that specific one here, it was the first time I'd experienced this sort of tagging. I didn't really know what to do with it.
    The info page said to leave an explanation on the Talk page - which I tried to do.
    I was then told:
    > I can demolish everything you wrote
    along with what I now know is 'wikilawyering'. You can see how I reacted:
    > Who goes onto a page and says "I can demolish everything you wrote" and then cries about bad faith?!
    Because from the info page, I assumed that when an admin came to look at that file to decide upon deletion, they would see that remark and do something with it. I didn't even know this ANI process existed then.
    Except nothing was done. The admin either read Iruka's "demolish" response and decided it was acceptable, or didn't read it.
    And, ever since then, Iruka has continued to target me at regular intervals, leaving me unsure what - if anything - to do.
    You can guess that the targeting is to "prevent looks of batch deleting" - but it's still a guess. Iruka could've engaged civilly, in the same way they could with any other user who has reported a problem.
    In the same way they could be on this thread right now explaining what's actually going on. If they did that, neither you or I would have to guess. Peterspeterson (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please forgive the length of this. This discussion has gone a bit sideways, the issue is not whether Iruka13 is “correct” or not in their file tagging and file deletions, the problem is that their behavior is disturbing and upsetting a number of experienced, good-faith editors, myself included.

    It is precisely the same conduct that got them blocked on Commons, Russian WP and Ukranian WP. Stalking may not be the right term for the behavior but I do believe there is deliberate harassment conducted by the editor. Misplaced Pages itself defines harassment as Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. That is clearly the effect their behavior has had with multiple ediors.

    Here is a synopsis of my interactions with this user and why I feel I have been harassed and made to feel upset and frightened to the point that I’ve virtually stopped editing.

    1. I uploaded File:Zuni wolf fetish with medicine bundle and heartline, carved by Stuart Lasiyoo.jpg. After uploading I realized the size was too large for fair-use, and made a note of my error on the file talk page (I was unable to reduce it because I did not have access to Photoshop at the time). BTW, Zuni fetishes are ceremonial objects made by the Zuni tribe of Native Americans that are also sold as small sculptures; they have nothing to do with the sexualized notion of "fetish".

    2. I received message about the file on my user talk. Diff: to which I responded and answered on the file talk page.

    3. The discussion then resumed at the File talk page about the deletion nomination. Diff: use rationale where I explained my rationale for fair use. The editor then responded with: judging by the response you didn't look at them; right?, which I thought was rather rude to assume I don't read messages (which explains my response on my user talk page).

    4. They then went on the argue with me in a mocking tone: But it is so. wow, your contribution is bigger than mine, it's not for me to tell you about it and wow_2, who am I telling this to?. I told them that their response did not seem very nice. They responded: What I was trying to say is that what I'm saying, you already know. You know better than me. / uploading this image boggles my mind. I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi warned the editor on their talk page.

    5. After I wrote a more detailed rationale why the file was suitable as fair-use, they refused to answer my own simple question responding instead with: I can answer all the questions posed in this message. And I will, if it be necessary. But first, please answer the question - and, for the sake of the experiment, let's assume that all the images in that category are really unsuitable... and asked me an "experimental question" whether I could create from scratch a "completely free image", a proposal that would involve spending a large amount of money. Diff: As a volunteer editor, that seemed utterly absurd, and it became clear to me they were just yanking my chain.

    6. I then noticed they were treating others in similar ways, for example asking editors to buy a glass basketball backboard shield specifically to then smash it with a rock after installing a camera specifically to create a fair use image. Diffs: (uploaded by Left guide) ]. This clearly seemed they were wikilawyering and arguing for the sake of argument with the intent to annoy and intimidate others. I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi issued a short block.

    7. I then noticed on their user page a link to their “Laboratory”, which creeped me out because the strange “experimental questions” seemed like mind-games. I noticed that not only was there an entry for the Zuni fetishes file, but that some of it was actually written in “invisible ink” using the < ! -- template, and included a a number of my file uploads. Diff from January 2: and . I know that being creepy is not a blockable offense but it scared the daylights me, because I have been Wiki-stalked not only online, but in real life.

    8. I directly asked them to STOP following me around. Instead they created a user sub-page, replacing all the images with 19th century inaccurate illustrations, romanticized representations of the art of Zuni tribe Native Americans by none other than an ethnographer who looted artifacts from the Zuni people. Diff: I again demanded that they STOP and I quit editing. I refuse to be someone's "experimental laboratory" subject, that is disturbingly creepy.

    9. If this is considered “normal” behavior by administrators, well, then after 13 years of editing, I’m out of here. I can not and I will not have a hobby as a volunteer editor in a place where I feel unsafe and harassed, especially from a single-purpose editor with a long history of such behavior – no matter if their tagging or deletions are “correct.” Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not going to respond point by point here, but I don't think the uncivil interactions with you are "normal" behavior. The issue is that Iruka was already blocked for that conduct and I still don't see how the pages Iruka created in his userspace – which did not mention you by name and which he did not notify you of – are harassment. If Iruka starts being uncivil again or starts harassing people, I'll be the first to indef him. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    The issue seems to be that the behavior Netherzone mentions has been experience by multiple other users. This appears to be a pattern of inappropriate behavior spread out over quite some time. And quite honestly, the "laboratory" really does strike me as creepy behavior intended to needle other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The only two editors I have seen complain about stalking are Netherzone and Peterspeterson. I've asked multiple times for evidence that Iruka's file deletion nominations are largely incorrect, but the only evidence provided thus far have been files that other admins have seen fit to delete and contested FFD discussions. In my view, this complaint seems largely based on vibes and conduct preceding the block. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Having been pinged to this, my experience and another thread I saw suggests to me that the user really wants to delete things - not just that they are being gnomish in the area of deletion for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, no, that they actively want to delete stuff and be uncivil to those who do not share this philosophy. In this way, they seem to mass search for anything that could have a valid reason to delete, even if another another option is better or, as in what drew my attention, even if they have to make up some reason why a file meets deletion rationale when it doesn’t. That is another issue: while their deletion noms may be generally correct because they are seeking out files with issues, their tagging of files that only need reduction to be deleted, their tagging of Commons-eligible files, and their bizarre suggestion to purchase an iage license as proof of owenership, strike me as someone who does not understand Misplaced Pages or Commons policy very well and does not care if understanding will get in the way of their tagging g. ULtimately, the poor tags that may not get chance to be corrected, and rejectiong collaboratoon, negate any positive of being the first person to tag some bad files and thus make the user’s contributions in deletion a net negative for WP. I am struggling just to type this on mobile so can’t or provide diffs atm. Kingsif (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was pinged above by Drmies. I'm not going to read this whole case. I'll briefly say that my main interaction with Iruka13 was at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 28 § File:Backboard shattering.jpeg. I'm not an FFD regular, but I get the sense that these arguments they used were not mainstream:

    • Telling the uploader to buy the non-free image themselves and donating it for free.
    • Using AI/3D editors as free replacements.

    Those did not gain consensus at that FFD. If they are continuing these arguments, and have not gained community support, it would be disruptive and a WP:TBAN might be reasonable. WP:AGF is a guideline, so its hard to gauge what part of their communication can be attributed to English not being their primary language and perhaps lacking the gentleness and politeness that are common in some English-speaking cultures, versus what's an actual harassing, wikilawyering tone. For example, they said: And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it. Later, they claimed: I decided here, in case the discussion is closed by , to buy the rights to the photo. But they should also become aware of others' reactions as well, and take measures to adjust.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    The shattered backboard file was discussed and the consensus was to keep it; so, FFD seems to have worked as it's intended to work. For reference, two others !voted to delete the file in that FFD; so, that means at least two others agreed with Iruka13's assessment. Iruka13 might have a hard time expressing themselves in English if that's not their first language, and some of their arguments might be perplexing: personally, I wouldn't try the "buy the rights and donate the image" line of argument; however, the question here with respect tagging/nominateing files for deletion is (at least in my opinion) not whether Iruka13 is being a nuisance, but rather whether they're wrong so much more than they're right to the point that being that being wrong is causing things to seriously breakdown. The behavioral and poor communication issues and probably need to be addressed, but those things aren't limited to files; if those things are the real problem, then a t-ban/restriction related to files makes little sense to me. I don't see their assessment of files with respect to relevant policies as being perfect, but I also don't see it as being as bad as some posting above are claiming. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles

    Citation bot keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on User talk:Citation bot#Incorrect reference dates, however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.

    Diffs:

    Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. EF 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. EF 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    You can add this to the page in question – {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} – or you can add this to a specific citation – {{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} – to keep the bot away. See -- Stopping the bot from editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that Citation bot did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on Ludlow Massacre, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation bot is not a user script, but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
    "All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
    -WP:Bot policy Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the person who is using the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most of these seem to have been invoked by Abductive, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
    Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
    These edits were suggested by the following user:
    Legend of 14 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found another bad date in another article:
    Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found another bad date in another article:
    Suggested by user:
    Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is still about Citation bot. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by User:Spinixster. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    You have given the operators less than one day to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can see here the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    "All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
    -WP:Bot policy
    WP:Citing sources is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you quote the part of WP:RS which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. this diff? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about your use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BOTACC specifically says The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot. EF 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
    I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right?? Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unsupervised bot and script use has damaged thousands of articles. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December).... XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    We're into the second batch of ReferenceExpander edits to check and clean up. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to Whoop whoop pull up two weeks ago (read here) about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed me to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have continued to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at User talk:Whoop whoop pull up § Checking IABot runs.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. Both should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here neither. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BOTP is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
    • Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
      • WP:BOTACC says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
      • BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of WP:ROLE. Now, ROLE does have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple managers", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're developed and maintained by a team of people (rather than ones that can be used by multiple people).
      • Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to 50,000 pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the only people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they were, in fact, approved implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
      • WP:BOTCOMM seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
      • WP:BOTREQUIRE says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
      • WP:BOTCONFIG provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
    • Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
      • WP:BOTMULTIOP says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved despite the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
    Whoop whoop pull up 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
    "Both should take reponsibility"
    -Phil Bridger at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
    Policy is very clear, don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or, as the same page quoted above puts it: Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    ☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    " make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots" Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. CNC (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    A bizare editing war on the trotskyist organization list

    NO ACTION NEEDED Permanent debate among permanent revolutionaries. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    In the last 24 hours some strage editing war seem to have taking place on the following page trying to remove or change it's content:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/List_of_Trotskyist_organizations_by_country DiGrande (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    This looks like a content dispute. As ever, it should be addressed by reliable sources (which usually don't include social media sites) and talk page discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    These edit wars occur fairly regularly on articles related to these groups as there is a lot of in-fighting and division among members, former members and interested parties especially regarding the lineage of Trotskyist and communist organizations. If you are concerned and it continues, you can open a report at WP:ANEW and please notify the involved editors when you open complaints like this. Liz 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Communist organisations taking chunks out of one another? Well, I never — Czello 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be fair, there is nothing more insulting than being incorrectly called a Trotskyist. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, this oddity appears to likely be Stalinist splinters trolling each other by adding their rivals to the list of Trotskyist groups. signed, Rosguill 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know if this is really bizarre -- I'd say "Trotskyist organizations getting into petty internecine conflict" is about as predictable as, oh, someone already made this exact same comment. jp×g🗯️ 06:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The disputes between The People's Front of Judea, The Judean People's Popular Front, The Campaign for a Free Galilee, and The Popular Front of Judea? Narky Blert (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools

    I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights.

    My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) a message for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person made a discussion on the talk page about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me this message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I didn't understand what exactly was the issue, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I wish him merry Christmas, he wishes me, everything is fine.

    Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is hounding my edits. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor (Augmented Seventh): 1, 2, 3. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.

    I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi replaced my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential talk page guideline violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to seek clarification as to why they did this on their talk page. In their response to me, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me this message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see this edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me this message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. This edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.

    I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - here they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when he has gotten the same message twice for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of reverting edits without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. jolielover♥talk 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and assume good faith, you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. Here, for example, they say: Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. . You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. C F A 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. (1, 2, 3, 4 5, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Seeing no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments demanding that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. jolielover♥talk 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. C F A 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
    @Jolielover: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are obvious vandalism.
    Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you will stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you might stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. jolielover♥talk 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) @PEPSI697: A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page here, here and here. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at WP:YOUNG and WP:REALWORLD because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on your user talk page that you get stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been previously been warned about. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you sometimes don't understand what some words mean, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Response and apology from PEPSI697

    The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the WP:PRIMER or looking at the task center? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.
    Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. NewBorders (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is guidance on how to use the {{Talk header}} found on its documentation page at Template:Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page? and also at WP:TALKLEAD. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in WP:CONTRIBUTE and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like WP:GUILD, WP:DEORPHAN, WP:HELPWP, WP:URA, WP:RANPP for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at WP:RAILWAY or WP:STATIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with Bell railway station, Melbourne, but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get Preston railway station, Melbourne article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Topic ban or ban on creating articles outside the AFC process?

    SOCK IT TO THEM PsychoticIncall blocked for sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    PsychoticIncall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been an editor since March of last year. As can be seen on their Talk page and on the page creation log, since May 2024, they have created dozens of articles and unlikely redirects, many of which have been deleted after AfDs. Currently, from their talk page alone, I count 29 articles on non-notable poker players that ended up being deleted, and a further nine that ended up as redirects or a merge to a more appropriate article, with only six of the AfD'ed articles being kept. This is obviously a drain on the time of people who regularly participate at New Pages Patrol and/or AfD.

    A request to become more familiar with WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE and to consider using the WP:AFC process for new articles (and to not create unlikely redirects) went unanswered. 23 articles have been deleted/redirected since then, by my count.

    While notability is the main concern, sourcing, spelling and grammar on these pages are all less than ideal. An IP asked about the user's process for article creation (also unanswered), specifically asking about apparently random/non-sequitur section headings (which can be seen still in place at Anson Tsang) - similar seemingly random headings were also used on the (now-deleted) article Malo Lanois article (mentioned in the AfD.) Many of the surviving articles use essentially random terms, with poker players being described (without sources) as "semi-amateur", and "quarter-professional".

    I would like to propose either a topic ban from poker and poker-related articles for PsychoticIncall; or, at minimum, a ban on creating articles outside of the WP:AFC process. Bastun 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    You stated that 23 articles have been deleted since September 2024. But are these 23 articles newly created since September 2024, or prior to that? If they have reduced their article creations over time as their articles get deleted (of which 6 survived), I don't think any ban is appropriate, and uninvolved editors should weigh in on a guidance in creating poker player articles in the future. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    A better question to ask is "Is their ratio of good work to bad any better?" I'd say no, it's not significantly better. I'd support a topic ban or article-space ban; their attachment to the topic seems to keep them immune from listening to requests to change their behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I looked at their user creation logs, and they markedly reduced their article creations after Bastun's warning on 17:55, 2 September 2024, seeing they only created 4 articles which admittedly 3 were deleted. I think anyone creating 4 articles and having 3 articles deleted is not ground for ANI. They made a lot of redirects that were deleted though, I think a warning against careless redirect creations is appropriate, because it appears they listen to warnings. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    A quick check of the creation logs is showing me that since 30 September, they have created 32 redirects, 5 of which remain undeleted, and 9 articles, 2 of which remain undeleted. Bastun 10:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please just block them indef, they not only have massive competence issues but they are a sock of a blocked editor, . I can provide more evidence or start an SPI if necessary. Fram (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oh, wow - good catch! Looking at User_talk:TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee, it looks indistinguishable from User talk:PsychoticIncall. Note also the use of the invented (?) term, "quarter professional", in article titles on that talk page, a term PsychoticIncall also uses. Quack. Bastun 10:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this is a convincing case for SPI, please start it. Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've started it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    However, there is a big gap in time since EBBB was blocked until now, so we may not get good CU results. But I'm going to block on behavior for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suspicious activity of several accounts

    OP has withdrawn complaint. They know the way to WP:SPI and have been encouraged to make use of it. Liz 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I'm not going to take this to sockpuppet investigation because I don't have enough evidence of sockpuppetry. So I'm going to report it here just in case, someone could investigate this situation. @Kaloypangilinan: restored @CindyMalena:'s edits in these two articles.. I reverted CindyMalena's edits because they were unreferenced. Both these editors didn't add a reference to the same names they've added in the two articles and they didn't use the edit summary. These are the unreferenced edits of CindyMalena. The changes of CindyMalena/Kaloypangilinan aren't 100% identical, but they've added names that the references of the article don't mention. Kaloypangilinan has been warned 4 times (last year) in their talkpage for unreferenced content. Kaloypangilinan also don't respond to talk page messages, they've been reported here in ANI before, and still continue to make unreferenced edits. Since I became suspicious if these two editors are connected, I discovered CindyMalena created this page for "Kaloy Tingcungco", an actor in the Philippines according to Google. Then I googled "Kaloy Pangilinan" in google and pictures of the Philippine actor "Kaloy Tingcungco" came out. Whats weirder is CindyMalena edited the Wikipage of this blocked account User:Fakolyabouz. I don't know how can a newly created account edit a Wikipage of a blocked editor, if they aren't connected. Hotwiki (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    You really should take this to WP:SPI. For one thing, if you're right, it's the appropriate venue. For another, if you're wrong but have put together a case with behavioural evidence such as the editing of a blocked editor's user boxes you're less likely to get accused of casting aspersions. My sincere recommendation is to withdraw this incident report and then create a SPI case. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per @Simonm223:'s suggestion, I'm going to withdraw this incident report. As for a SPI case, both CindyMalena and Kaloypangilinan have less than 200 edits and I simply don't have enough amount of evidence to report them in Spi. Hotwiki (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hotwiki, why do you think the editors have to have made 200 edits before they can be reported? Some editors who have been blocked as sockpuppets have made 0 edits. Liz 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The last editor, I've reported relating to sockpuppetry before this was User:Arborgenus had 71 edits. Looking at the contributions page of Kaloypangilinan and CindyMalena, I don't have much evidence aside from what I already posted here. I did notice the similar behavior of no communication in their respective talkpage and not using the edit summary. Like I said, I don't know how can a new account can locate this page User:Fakolyabuoz/Bryce_Eusebio, since the user page of Fakolyabuoz is empty and their talkpage don't have any posts that would direct new users to User:Fakolyabuoz/Bryce_Eusebio. I would need more evidence if I ever report something to SPI. I've only submitted reports in SPI, twice if I'm remembering correctly. Hotwiki (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hotwiki, if you have enough evidence then you should report suspected sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. If you don't have enough evidence then you shouldn't report it anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did make a mistake coming here about this issue, thats why I already withdrew this report. Also, I've only made two sockpuppet reports (if I remember correctly) which both were stressful for me. With Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena, I just didn't want to go through the same process with fewer evidences, which is why I came here to ANI. Hotwiki (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It sounds like @Hotwiki is just looking for assurance that it's OK to take this to SPI with this evidence?
    Hotwiki, I'm not an admin or a checkuser, nor an expert on SPI, but you can always try submitting a report. It's easier if you use Twinkle. There isn't any rush to submit a report, you can take your time. Knitsey (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you @Knitsey:. For now, I don't feel confident filing a SPI report against CindyMalena/Kaloy Pangilinan. The last SPI case I made was stressful because the sockpuppeteer had several accounts. I ended up doing 2 reports which were both confirmed right. Last month, I reported a sockpuppeteer in ANI because they admitted it through their talkpage and it was connected to those two times I made a report in Spi. But this is a different case with Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena. If I get more evidences in the future, I would go back to it and send it to SPI. Thank you for the suggestions and I'm sorry if I brought up my sockpuppet suspicious here, since this isn't the right place for that. Hotwiki (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Douglas1998A creating incorrect categories.

    The pblock will continue until communication improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Two weeks ago I opened this discussion on Douglas1998A creating and adding incorrect categories to pages, most notably on Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series). In November 2024, they created Category:Portuguese-language American telenovelas and added it to Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series), even though they are not American telenovelas. The category was deleted but in December 2024, they created Category:Brazilian-American telenovelas and added the previously mentioned pages to this new category when they are only Brazilian telenovelas and not American ones. . The category was deleted and the user created it once more today and added it to Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series) again.

    The first time this issue was brought up to the noticeboard it was never resolved as the user failed to discuss the issue after being notified of the discussion, and they have never bothered to reply back to messages on their talk page. How can this be resolved if the user continuously fails to engage in consensus building?Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pretty obviously a communication is required problem and also wrong. The telenovelas don't have any American production outside of one being dubbed into Spanish by a U.S. broadcaster, which does not count. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Has Douglas1998A done any positive work in Category space? Because if it's just warring over these two categories, they could be partially blocked from Categories unless their other work creating categories is fine. Liz 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per Douglas1998A's talk page, two other categories created by them were nominated and deleted. These were: Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows and Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows. So I believe there it's more than just the Brazilian/Portuguese categories.
    I have also mentioned to Douglas1998A that pages should be placed in the most specific categories to which they belong. For example on La gran sorpresa they persistently added Category:Spanish-language television programming in the United States, when the page is already in the subcategory Category:Univision original programming.
    Douglas1998A's lack of communication and reverting edits show they are unwilling to discuss and resolve the issues with their edits. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    A day has passed since the user was notified of this discussion. They have continued editing and have not bothered to reply. The user is ignoring the issue and it will once again be unresolved. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Red X User blocked from article space per WP:COMMUNICATE. Once the user begins commmunicating and adequately addresses these concerns, any admin is free to lift the block. Jauerback/dude. 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two editors and WineGUI

    Danger89 indef'd per WP:NOTHERE. Justcomic1 indef'd as an obvious sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Two editors, Danger89 and Justcosmic1, have been constantly pushing for what seems like a restoration of the WineGUI article, which was changed to a redirect per an AFD I started, complete with a lack of competence. Timeline of events:

    • I start the WineGUI AFD, citing a genuine reason in the AFD that the article shows no importance or notability whatsoever. I did this after I started a PROD, which was reverted by Danger89 (they're a developer of WineGUI, I'll explain later).
    • In AFD, all editors unilaterally vote yes. Danger89 replies to almost all of them, giving a source of their GitLab page, and saying it's not primary. When asked why they are writing an article about their own product (aka COI violations), they just say something along the lines of, "I don't like it"
    • After the AFD is closed, I take a look at Danger89's user page. There, they state that they are indeed the developer of the app, so I leave them a notice about COI with a stern warning that they may be blocked if they continue to ignore COI rules. In response to this, an IP which can confidently be assumed to be Danger89 logged out just writes block me, showing a disruptive attitude.
    • Danger89 cites a userbase number on the WineGUI talk page to which I reply that notability does not depend on things like that. Justcosmic1, within 3 edits, twists the PROD policy by saying that I knew there would be opposition (no I didn't), and saying that I have a beef with Danger89, failing to cite any evidence.
    • Danger89 blanks my userpage, to which I give a generic level 4 warning. After this, Justcosmic1 joins the conversation and writes a reply that looks like it was from Danger89. This appears to be their fourth edit, which looks extremely suspicious and like a sock (not making any allegations, but just saying). Their other 3 edits were on the WineGUI talk page.

    Also, Danger89 continually edited the WineGUI page while it was still up, further contravening COI rules. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 01:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Al-Naghawi page

    Not an ANI issue. (non-admin closure) Heart 03:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    currently there is an edit issue going on with the Al-Naghawi page as information is being changed back and forth alongside the page's title name so I wish for admin intervention to resolve issues as sources are not being checked which are cited as they are irrelevant to the page. 82.14.223.77 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    WP:ANEW is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocked user spamming their own talk page

    CALLED ON THE CARPET Blocked with TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warning. —Bruce1ee 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've pulled TPA as well, since they can't help spamming, apparently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. —Bruce1ee 09:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Magian Priest's Descendant - egregious personal attacks

    Escalated to indeffed. Nothing further. (non-admin closure) Heart 03:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Magian Priest's Descendant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm sorry, but ask someone that's more intelligent. A European, perhaps.

    SHUT THE FUCK UP!... IMPBRAIN!

    Other than the fact that HistoryofIran is a retarded parsi...

    Also violated WP:3RR at Vologases V , refusing to use the talk page (whose comments shows that they either have WP:CIR issues or are trolling). --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    While not strictly a 3RR violation (note the last diff is a different edit) but absolutely edit-warring, and when combined with the personal attacks in the edit-summaries, have blocked them for 24 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks The Bushranger! HistoryofIran (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Non-neutral paid editor

    @EMsmile is heavily editing Solar_radiation_modification in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
    • Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
    • Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
    • - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
    • Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
    An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably WP:NOTHERE. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    done Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.
    1. By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as "has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world" and "The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality" + "The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"? Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate WP:NOTNEWS and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a very strong statement cited to...an obscure book, seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
    2. Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally WP:RECENT, and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. If that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, then it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
    3. Do you really think phrases like "China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments." are consistent with WP:NPOV? Really? Maybe cutting all of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
    4. That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently an internal publication of the Central Bank of Hungary. It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
    In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably WP:NOTHERE" seems downright Kafkaesque. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like Climate change, you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't bad by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply not good enough or relevant enough for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
    Given this context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not obligated to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @EMsmile's paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @Andrewjlockley provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
    My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. TERSEYES (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adding: Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 TERSEYES (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • An editor with a declared COI should never be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the strongly discouraged wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Aquillion So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this (Redacted)?
      Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that if Earth System Governance is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering is not even seen anywhere on their front page - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as Research Framework. The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban) - that would be wrong. See WP:SELFCITE; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we want editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS Having a perspective on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. WP:PAID editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then WP:COI needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
    It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change strongly discouraged to prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism). I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.
    Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be manually saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I need to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to this case, rather than a general statement.
    Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this Uh, guys? Does WP:OUTING mean nothing to you? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the principles of privacy still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Could we get an edit to WP:OUTTING for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley

    I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
    With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
    I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
    P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
    All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
    The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.
    Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
    Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
    If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
    • With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
    • AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
    • I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
    • Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.
    I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
    Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
    Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.
    In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.
    The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
    For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.
      opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
      alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?

    EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit wikipedia seems analagous to | wikimedian in residence. See also WP:WIRCOI. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no WP:TEND. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    My situation is totally different to @EMsmile. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @EMsmile adjusting the page to favour her client (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the SRM article here. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per WP:DUE.
    Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding WP:OUTTING- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
    Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile

    Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. EMsmile is a paid editor who violated WP:OUTING - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight are highly disruptive - and that's notwithstanding the paid editing. Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.
    the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    From WP:WIRCOI WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages - this seems not to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
    want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see User:EMsmile apologize for the WP:OUTING that occurred. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).
    That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
    However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations. but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
    mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.
      I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. Liz 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      I meant meat puppet. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support a topic ban with no opinion on indef block at this time.

    From what I can see, Earth System Governance looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the COI guideline: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution" (emphasis in the original). Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:

    • August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
    • Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
    • Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted. Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with WP:PAYTALK , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of WP:TPO.

    When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.

    EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page." Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client.

    It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:CoastRedwood - Harassment

    Blocked for a week and warned not to do this. Good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Repeated personal attacks, harassment and not following behavior policies by CoastRedwood. Despite multiple warnings from multiple editors to address the behavior, CoastRedwood has edited other users' pages, engaged in personal attacks, made uncivil comments and is not willing to heed constructive feedback. Personal attacks/harassment - , , and editing others' userpages' , , , , , . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah, that's not great. A weird WP:RGW mentality toward... emojis? Mentions of anthromorphic foxes? And, frankly, the specific personal attack of degenerate used in that specific context is... it suggests a disruptive editing mindset. I don't know. Maybe their non-disruptive work on animal species has enough value that we don't go directly to a WP:NOTHERE block (though I am on the fence about that) but, at the very least, they need a topic ban from editing other editors user pages. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is being dealt with on CoastRedwood's talk page by sysops, and escalating it to AN/I is premature.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please see the timeline of the edits made. CoastRedwood is still approaching both the editors after two admins have already tried explaining it to him. This was made recently after multiple warnings. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out that diff. I didn't see it. That was after my formal warning, so I went ahead and blocked them for a week just now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks everyone! I'm not sure what caused this user to make such remarks against ArkHyena and I; also thankful for the quick actions taken while I was a bit busy. Some of the content they removed from my userpage was only intended to promote humor and just for a little fun, and their rationales for it sound questionable, at the least. ~ Tails Wx 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, but that was your first mistake. You see, fun is not allowed on here :P
    NewBorders (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Earl Andrew

    Heat exceeding light. Legend of 14 is advised that ANI is the last resort for dispute resolution, not the first, and in the future should exhaust other options before coming here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Earl Andrew is using personal attacks against me for leaving notices on WP:BLPN. It is interfering in those discussions.

    Diffs:

    Legend of 14 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Did you try discussing with Earl Andrew about supposed personal attacks before coming here? Tarlby 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I did not. How does one respond directly to disrespectful comments and accusations of bad faith, followed by a suggestion that you should do their job under WP:BURDEN on wikipedia, because I have no idea what to say to them. I wouldn't normally resort to ANI over these comments, but in my opinion these comments are inferring in discussions on WP:BLPN. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would ask for an apology directly if I was getting personally attacked. Tarlby 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I felt like asking for an apology in this case would likely escalate the disputes in question, and could be seen as provocative in this case. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Does opening an ANI thread for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems not escalate the disputes in question? Tarlby 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think anything I've done in this thread could be seen as taunting or baiting. I think a reply like "Please apologize for your personal attack" would be seen as taunting. ANI escalates the dispute, but in a way that did not unreasonably increase the chance of incivility. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Neither of those is a personal attack. The second is more critical of you than the first, but still a long ways from an attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accusing me of making bad faith edits, without offering any evidence to support bad intentions is a personal attack. The first diff is more of a disrespectful comment than a personal attack, I could've been more clear. Both comments are bad for the discussion. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are removing non contentious information from a lot of articles, and claiming they are contentious. That to me feels like bad faith editing. Up for interpretation for sure, but in no way did I mean it as a personal attack. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Provide diffs. I can't respond to unsubstantiated claims. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why were you deleting Allan Higdon's birthplace? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you please explain how this question relates to the topic of Earl Andrew's comments? If understand why you're asking the question I'll be able to give a better answer. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see no personal attacks in the diffs you provided. I would say that Earl calling you a destructive force wasn't very WP:CIVIL, but WP:WIAPA tells me that those comments weren't "personal" attacks. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
    -WP:WIAPA
    I never called him a "destructive force". Legend of 14 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I misread your comment. The quote from WIAPA still stands. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree, that might have been a personal attack, but also please read WP:PA#First offenses and isolated incidents. ANI should have been the last resort for you. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    See above comments for why I did not think I had other options. Also, see how even after being aware that I found the comments insulting/disparaging, the user continued to make them without substantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116171300-Legend_of_14-20250116164200. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Insulting or disparaging is very different than having a disagreement. While WIAPA is not exhaustive, neither of those diffs area anywhere in the same ballpark as the other examples -- this is a million miles away from Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based (common discrimination classes), Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people or threats. There is no incivility in asking "how is something contention", even if it is prefixed with "how on earth"... If you feel insulted or disparaged because someone questioned the validity of your contributions, you need to grow a thicker skin. Also did you even read the section on top about Before posting? Which of those have you actually attempted before coming here? Also as someone else has mentioned you should be cautioned about boomerang, meaning that your own actions also have a spotlight on them and you have volunteered put your own edits and conduct up for scrutiny. TiggerJay (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No one has linked to any of my edits here. There's a difference between some criticizing an identified edit and making disparaging remarks about unidentified edits by a named editor. I can't defend the edits that the user has a problem with because they have not been clearly identified with me. When an edit I made that was identified was brought up here, I did my best to answer the questions.
    I did not raise every issue here on the users talk page. When I tried to raise issues on the editor's talk page see User talk:Earl Andrew#January 2025, I got called unconstructive. When I went to the forum WP:BLPN, the editor escalated by disparaging me as editing in bad faith. I had reason to believe that further discussion on the talk page would go nowhere, so I posted here under WP:Ignore All Rules, instead of making what I felt would almost certainly be another unproductive talk page discussion. Given that since making this notice, the user has continued to make unsubstantiated claims about my character, I think I had the correct judgement. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have not addressed the question how the diffs you provided of EA's behavior is anywhere in the ballpark of the criteria of WIAPA. You were the one who claimed as such, so the onus is on you to substantiate in what way where their comments violating the policy on personal attacks. I would even have a hard time considering them uncivil, but even if they were, uncivility is quite a different matter than a personal attack. So which aspects of WP:WIAPA do you feel EA's comments closely resemble? TiggerJay (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I believe the comments about me acting in bad faith are disparaging remarks about me and therefore qualify as personal attacks. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also think the comment about "How in the world" is an insult against me given the context is, it was promptly followed by another comment by the same user accusing me of bad faith. I hope this explanation is satisfactory. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Suggesting my statements are a "personal attack" on you carries about the same weight as me suggesting this whole discussion is a personal attack against me. You are grasping at straws. If you're going to pick fights with everyone who dares cross your path (I see you've bombarded User:Adam Bishop's talk page now), you may find yourself blocked. And no, that's not a threat, I am not going to block you, as that would be a conflict of interest.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The only possibilities here are "extremely stupid" or "troll". Either way it's a clear case of disruptive editing. I suppose I can't do the banning myself either, now. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I finding Dispute resolution confusing. This convo should be closed because I didn't try to resolve all my disputes with you first, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Bushranger-20250116213500-Legend_of_14-20250116190800. But, also now that I'm trying to resolve concerns as I become aware of them with another user outside of ANI, I should also be blocked for that. Don't use ANI, use the talk page for all issues first, but also don't keep posting on the talk page. Can you please clearly state the process I should go through to resolve disputes? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting you should be blocked, I'm saying that if you continue with this petty behaviour, someone will inevitably block you. Learn from this experience and stop trying to pick fights with people.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to start fights with others though. I've never directly commented on another's character. I've tried to focus on the content of the articles or discussion pages comments, not why such actions were done or the character of the person doing them, and on the relevant policies. What are you saying I should do differently? Legend of 14 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You do realize you were the one who instigated this ANI case, correct? You're actually lodging a formal complaint about a different editors behavior. It's a little late to suggest you're simply an innocent bystander. TiggerJay (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not saying I'm a bystander. I'm not the one who made uncivil comments on WP:BLPN, which is what started this "fight". Legend of 14 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on this dispute, but just in case you're unaware, the behavior of anyone participating in these threads, whether as someone who's reporting, being reported, or even just commenting, may be scrutinized for wrongdoing. See WP:BOOMERANG. NewBorders (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll give the answer here I gave on WP:BLPN, I removed uncited claims about immigration status. To add additional information beyond what I said there, Canada's immigration system has somewhat recent come under fire for being used to suppress wage growth https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/, so I removed the uncited content because for that reason it could be considered contentious. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it is relevant to include an instance on User talk:Earl Andrew where the user says they're "suspicious of this user's true intentions", without linking to any edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Earl_Andrew#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116180500-Tarlby-20250116174800 This happened after I initiated the ANI. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Legend of 14, what sort of resolution are you seeking here? Because so far, while some editors acknowledge that Earl Andrew could have been more civil, no one has agreed with you that these are personal attacks. Are you looking for validation, an apology, a chance to vent, or some kind of sanction because the latter won't be happening based on the response here. Liz 18:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Another user has agreed that these could be personal attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Corvette_ZR1-20250116174800-Legend_of_14-20250116173700. I was hoping for a retraction of all the unsubstantiated claims about me acting in bad faith and comments that the user is suspicious of my intentions and an interaction ban with me, and a restriction against making comments about my character anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is not going to happen. is not remotely a personal attack. could be more WP:CIVIL but is also not a personal attack. And again, you must attempt to resolve issues before coming to ANI, which you by your own admission chose not to do. Strongly suggest this be closed as there is nothing to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chronic refusal to comply re edit summaries/copious, tendentious editing

    Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Despite years of requests by numerous editors to leave edit summaries, User: K1ngstowngalway1 makes another apology, another promise, leaves cursory remarks for a minority of their edits for a short while, then back to highly prolific editing with no explanations. (Raised repeatedly in their current talk page (most recently here), this previous talk page version (blanked, apparently in a botched archiving attempt) and at the talk page of a previous user name.)

    This would be problematic if the edits were not contentious but a high proportion are. Currently they are causing concern at Jacobitism articles. (See again the iterations of their talk pages referred to above, this discussion and this one, re OR, inaccurate citation, excessively lengthy quotes, overwhelming articles with peripheral or off-topic material, neutrality concerns, primary and self-published sources, ENGVAR, MOS, slow warring, blanking of maintenance tags, editorialising, anachronism.)

    A previous incident on this issue was lodged here but closed down after this exchange, later referred to again when there was no compliance.

    The abundance and extent of edits and the almost total omission of explanation makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work. If the much-repeated excuse of absent-mindedness is to be taken seriously, it indicates instead a significant and chronic competence issue. They either have no ability or no intention to engage meaningfully to explain their editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    I haven't looked into this in detail but I warned K1ngstowngalway1 about edit summaries on 25 November 2024, got a promise to improve, and note that they are still only using edit summaries occasionally and omitting them for substantial edits, eg ,,, to pick just three recent ones. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    For more regarding problematic editing at Jacobitism, see this talk page discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, recently come across this editor at Jacobitism, which prompted me to look at their other edits. I would say that lack of edit summaries is the least of the issues (albeit it does seem to be some sort of passive-aggressive deliberate stance - I don't buy that they consistently 'forget' to do it.) Their editing pattern appears to be to introduce tendentious POV edits based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with frequent misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. They WP:OVERLINK, often to concepts which are anachronistic or make a POV connection. They've been trying to make these sorts of changes to Jacobitism since last July and won't engage on the talk page. Their last revert had the edit summary Undid revision, as certain editors seem to have an emotional attachment to Whig history and to be unwilling to tolerate the use of more recent historical scholarship that places the conflicts of the era in a different light and shows that today's Britain represents a compromise between Whig and Jacobite ideology.. The misuse of sources and the links in the edits they want to restore in that revert seem typical of their editing approach having looked at what they have been doing elsewhere. DeCausa (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree entirely, including that the lack of edit summaries is but one of very many problems in their editing, having routinely encountered all the others you note. My reason for highlighting edit summaries is that it is the most abundantly demonstrable indication of the chronically tendentious nature of their editing, upon which we can agree to act. (FWIW, I did raise the broader issues at the NPOV board and also here last August but these discussions did not result in sanction.)
    The following are all talk page discussions where the leaving of edit summaries has been requested, or their omission noted, many featuring repeated reminders. They start in 2006 in their User:Kingstowngalway incarnation, 1, 2, 3, 4, then in the current id of User:K1ngstowngalway1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (trawled from the edit history) and 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 from the current talk page. More than enough in itself to impose a block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block request: IP user edit-warring and not discussing edits.

    IP warned against edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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


    IP user 98.97.15.82 is engaging in edit-warring on New Glenn regarding the vehicle being either "operational" or "under-development." Another user started a discussion on the talk page and I participated in it and referenced the discussion when reverting the IP user's edit. The IP user has since reverted the edit again and not participated in the discussion. I can't contact this user further as they are not on an account and do not want to continue an edit-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpacaaviator (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is being highly disruptive (battleground, attacks, edit war)

    Blocked. SPI still open. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    To noone's surprise, PopPunkFanBoi69 was indeed a sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm not sure that User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is here to build an encyclopaedia. Their edit history consists of a lot of unsourced content additions/changes, such as diff 1, diff 2. They have made talk page posts that are personal attacks or WP:BATTLEGROUND style, such as diff 1 (battleground), diff 2 (attack).

    Despite being warned by User:Binksternet (diff) for edit warring on 'List of rock genres', they continue to restore their edits without consensus (diff).

    One final thing that made me proceed to making this AN/I report: check out this reply on User:PopPunkFanBoi69's talk page, here's a quote from that: This is why I fucking hate editing Misplaced Pages because multiple accounts that have been blocked & having to create a new account! This suggests to me that this is a sockpuppet account, although I don't know about this user and their previous accounts.

    Either way, I see numerous policy violations here, such as civility, edit warring and potential violation of the multiple accounts policy. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    You haven’t looked at the Misplaced Pages articles Alternative pop & Alternative R&B for sources! So you don’t see the sources then stay quiet! Look at the Alternative rock article also for sources! PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    You may not know me but come to my talk page if you wanna know about me & my previous accounts like I understand you’re concerned for me & I’m inviting you to my talk page so you can get the full story! PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would have reported the problem here, but I got the sense I had seen this behavior before. After confirming my suspicion, I started a casepage at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RockMusic69. What with socking, a personal attack, and a 3RR violation, this person is not likely to retain their editing ability. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not a sockpuppet I’m just a very smart guy who knows a lot about music & Rock genres! Please by all means call me nasty names but I reported you! PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    EdsonCordeirodeSouza - Disruptive editing and edit warring

    Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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


    The user in question has been persistently disruptive editing and edit warring, currently primarily on The Masked Singer (American TV series) season 10. As it's been excluded for however long, the contestant/mask/celebrity they continue adding to the table was not a competing contestant and was only in the season as a special guest, as already mentioned in prose text with the table. Also in their preferred version that they keep edit warring back to, they continue messing up one of the sources URLs, changing it from https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-anonymouse-1235719311/ to https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-anony mouse-1235719311/, which in turn, continues to create a reference error.

    As seen on their talk page, this also does not appear to be their first time disruptively editing and edit warring. Despite their warnings less than a month ago and their recent warnings I've added to their talk page, they continue doing the same exact thing and there is no communication from them whatsoever. I had originally reported this at AIV, but as it was not specifically 'vandalism', I was advised to come here. Hoping this can be resolved, thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Janessian is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

    Editor Janessian has been indefinitely blocked for a whole laundry list of reasons so I'm closing this complaint. Liz 17:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


    And talk page access revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Janessian seems to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to harass editors over a pair of images they don't like in the article Killing of Wong Chik Yeok. They have already been sanctioned twice for edit warring on the article, but this latest comment between myself, JBW, NelsonLee20042020, and Skywatcher68, they posted this lovely little gem on JBW's talk page. Nelson has just informed me that Janessian has made a rather unpleasant comment on phil knights talk page as well .Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Insanityclown1, do you have more diffs that show a pattern of behavior? I think there has alreay been a report about them at ANI and a link to that discussion would help the case you are making. Liz 06:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    It looks like they were called both to ANI and ANEW. Links to prevous discussions help put a complaint in context. Liz 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Link to my complaint to ANEW: , . JBW handled the first block. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I was mistaken about a prior visit to ANI. I thought Isabelle blocked them. Liz 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    At this point my main concern is protecting fellow editors. Janessian's conduct has caused @NelsonLee20042020 what seems to be a fair amount of distress. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Isabelle blocked Janessian from editing the article. but some degree of talk page harassment has continued. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Janessian's editing is unacceptable in several ways, including edit-warring, legal threats, and personal attacks. I gave a short block, and when the unacceptable editing resumed Isabelle Belato gave an indef partial block from the article in question. For both blocks edit-warring was given as the reason, but it is perfectly clear that the problems go beyond that. The block from the article has been followed by unacceptable user talk page editing. I shall convert the block to a total one, apart from Janessian's own talk page, and post a message to that page in which I shall try to make it clearer what the problems are, and what can be done about them. Unfortunately it will take me a little while to get time to do that, but I hope minutes rather than hours. JBW (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yup this is a not here user look at this comment;
    Hi I am not interested in news reporting. I am not interested in working with editors. I only want the right thing to be done, which is to take down the photos of all the deceased in the crime articles which you guys have been circulating - half truths because a lot of if is copy and paste without due investigation. This is not fair to the deceased and not fair to the readers. A global reader will read it, not knowing that it is not the complete truth.
    WP:NOTHERE
    Little or no interest in working collaboratively
    Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict like disregarding polite behavior for baiting, blocking as a means of disagreeing, diverting dispute resolutions from objectives, driving away productive editors, or ownership of articles.
    Yup indeed block is warranted.CycoMa2 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Link to this comment.CycoMa2 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • My lawyer has used the word "offending" portion. He advised me to contact Wikimedia to remove the offending portion before taking any further action. . I was advised by a friend in Germany to make a police report and seek the help of lawyers to get the pictures down. My lawyer advised me to mediate with Misplaced Pages first and see if it yields any results. This pretty blatantly is a WP:NLT case. Note also the veiled accusation of socking by JBW and continued WP:ASPERSIONs against NelsonLee20042020 , and apparent utter disregard for WP:NOR If you guys are interested in crime reporting, you have to conduct interviews with people. You cannot simply cut and paste from other sources without verifying if it is true. . Pretty sure this should be a complete indef, I'd do it myself but would defer to one of the already-involved (in the "actively working on this" sense vis-a-vis WP:INVOLVED) admins. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Seems to take an issue with me because I've been telling them to "get real," because they've been harassing @NelsonLee20042020 and generally trying to intimidate the poor guy. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Unless someone is proposing a CBAN, which I don't think is justified here, I don't see why the user has not been indeffed sitewide. I respect Isabelle Belato and JBW, the only two admins who have taken administrative action, but even post JBW's final warning, the user continued their disruptive nonsense. I saw very little indication that the user was going to change their overall approach, let alone their only interest in being here, and I've indeffed the user accordingly; details of the many bases for the block are in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      The editor was given plenty of chances to course correct, but they decided to keep repeating the same mistakes. I have no issue with the indefinite site-wide block here. Isabelle Belato 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yep, good block. GiantSnowman 15:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A Case of Vandalism and Ignorance

    There is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page Ahir.

    Pls Understand whole matter

    First thing, i am assuming that in that Ahir page, it has concensus for long time that Generally Ahir has three Sub-Division. 1) Yaduvanshi 2) Nandavanshi and 3) Goallavanshi , reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years.

    But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following - 1st edit 2nd edit 3rd edit

    At first stance , i like their reason of these editing and thought probably this guy has a valid reason for doing that and I ignored.

    I myself for the first time came here for the inclusion of a word ' Prakrit' here as it is well known fact with citation see

    Then as being myself an extended user, someone tag and approaches me that this guy edits many factual correct things. pls correct it. then i got into this history contributions n all. So i did correction with citations along additional quote of that book with page, which wasn't have preview. see and this

    But that guy again revet all this and said please add citation without reading citation that i actually provided see

    Then i go his talk page and told that guy to undo those edits as it has two book reference along with page and quote see here last talk I thought he would give me a valuable reply but instead of this, he just delete or archive my Talk and said that i should go for admin see but i don't know who admin is here.

    Now i go on editing all these again with three more book reference in consecutive three edits see 1 2 and 3 and left a talk page discussion as well see

    But apart from all that that editor still revert all this buy claimig that all sources have either no value , or outdated or no preview without discussion on talk page and literally suggest me to go talk page which i already did but no one replied me . see

    This is totally i think Vandalism Case.

    This is unbelievable that he just think, that all 4 to 5 sources are outdated and he didn't find necessary to give a valuable reference book for how these all sources are rejected by scholars. Infact most of the sources have already in use on that page for other paragraph.

    that's all , hoping it need an urgent interrogation. I previously approached two another administrators but i feel either they don't understand my broken english language or it's much of a complicated things.

    Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmehelper (talk • contribs)

    This report has the characteristics of a content dispute. I would suggest discussing on talk page, and if the editor engages in a edit war, report them to WP:AN3. Fantastic Mr. Fox 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Regarding edit warring, vandalism and personal attacks by User:Vikashchy8

    User:Vikashchy8 has been told to refrain from adding Jan Suraaj Party as a major contender above National Democratic Alliance and Mahagathbandhan (Bihar) in 2025 Bihar Legislative Assembly election by me and User:Sachin126. User:Xoocit has also reverted his such edits once. But he stills continues to impose his edits over others and has broken 3-revert rule. Then he starts arguing and makes personal attacks. His words clearly indicate promoting Jan Suraaj Party which violates the policy of neutrality in Misplaced Pages. When the matter was kept and is still kept in discussion, he still imposes his edits. He is already warned for hijacking another page. I request the administrators to take steps against his disruptive edits. They can check 2025 and (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2025_Bihar_Legislative_Assembly_election&action=history). XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Its just one sided answer where he circle me a guilty every step. Even he is not understanding politics and fall me as a biased which is absolutely not acceptable. Vikashchy8 (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Formal Report: Request for Sanctions Against Editor "@Notwally"

    (non-admin closure) Summed up by User:Black Kite below. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    OP blocked as a sock; entire thread was mostly AI-generated piffle anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    To: Misplaced Pages Administrators

    Subject: Request for Administrative Review of Editor "@Notwally" Due to Disruptive Editing, Edit Warring, and Contentious Behavior

    Filed by: Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59)

    1. Summary of Issues

    The editor "@Notwally" has engaged in a persistent pattern of edit warring, removal of sourced content, aggressive debating, and violations of contentious topic restrictions across multiple articles. Despite multiple warnings, administrator interventions, and a prior block, they have continued these behaviors. Given their history of disruption, I request administrative intervention in the form of:

    • A topic ban from contentious topics, biographies of living persons (BLPs), political articles, film articles.
    • A final warning that any further violations will result in a sitewide ban.
    • Consideration of a sitewide ban if disruptive behavior continues.

    Reason (Will be discussed explicitly at the end of this report, in section "Key Incidents and Timeline"):

    • Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes): 13+ cases (2021 – Present)
    • Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions): 1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024)
    • Warnings for Edit Warring: 5+ formal warnings (Ongoing since at least 2022)
    • Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses): 10+ incidents
    • Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing): 15+ cases

    2. Evidence of Edit Warring and Policy Violations

    Josef Sorett Edit War (September 2024)

    • Reverted multiple times, ignoring WP:ONUS (burden of proof).
    • Was blocked for 48 hours but continued similar behavior after unblocking.
    • Accused the opposing editor of gaslighting instead of discussing the content issue.

    Salah Choudhury Edit War (December 2024)

    • Repeatedly re-added content without consensus.
    • Received a formal edit-warring warning but continued.
    • Ignored contentious topic restrictions.

    1917 (2019 film) Edit War (December 2024)

    • Engaged in multiple reversions over a minor issue (character titles).
    • Ignored the article’s long-standing consensus.
    • Was given an official warning for edit warring.

    Mark Karpeles Edit War (September 2024)

    • Involved in multiple content disputes with different editors.
    • Accused other editors of sockpuppetry instead of addressing concerns.
    • Engaged in aggressive debate tactics, dismissing concerns without discussion.

    3. Behavioral Issues

    Aggressive and Dismissive Tone

    • 1a) Accuses other editors of incompetence, e.g., "You don’t seem to understand how words work."
    • 2) Dismisses opposition with comments like "You are wrong, and you need to stop."
    • 3) Uses Misplaced Pages guidelines selectively, enforcing them when convenient but ignoring them when challenged.
    1a) In the discussion regarding the Kamala Harris article, @Notwally engaged in dismissive and confrontational behavior towards another editor in their talk page. Specifically, when user @DanMan3395 raised concerns about sourced content, @Notwally responded:

    "DanMan3395, you seriously don't seem to understand how words work, what relevance means, or how close you are to getting banned for WP:CIR." – Notwally (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024

    This response not only fails to engage in a good-faith discussion but also escalates hostility by implying the other editor lacks comprehension skills and is at risk of a ban. Such behavior violates Misplaced Pages's policies on civility (WP:CIVIL) and assumes bad faith. Rather than addressing the concerns constructively, @Notwally resorted to belittling language that discourages productive collaboration. Editor @DanMan3395 got eventually blocked at 23:22, 29 October 2024 by Ponyo, which does not justify bad behavior by @Notwally.

    Refusal to Engage in Proper Consensus Building

    • Instead of discussing changes, they revert first and ask for discussion later.
    • Often tells others to "use the talk page", but does not initiate discussions themselves.
    • Ignores consensus-based editing in favor of unilateral decisions.

    Repeatedly Challenging Misplaced Pages Policies Without Justification

    • Was blocked once but immediately appealed, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
    • Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative.
    • Continues to engage in content disputes even after being warned.

    @Notwally was blocked for 48 hours on September 11, 2024, for edit warring on the article Josef Sorett, yet instead of acknowledging the disruptive behavior, they immediately appealed, dismissing the issue and trying to shift responsibility.

    After being blocked for violating Misplaced Pages’s Three-Revert Rule (3RR), they submitted an unblock request without admitting any fault and instead claimed:

    "I am requesting that both @Knowitall369 and I be unblocked so that we can continue our discussion on the article's talk page. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive." – @Notwally (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024

    The appeal did not acknowledge the edit warring nor the need to cease reverting before engaging in discussion. Instead, it attempted to downplay the violation, portraying the block as unnecessary rather than recognizing the breach of Misplaced Pages’s WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR guidelines. Moreover, they argued technicalities, questioning whether they had actually exceeded three reverts, rather than addressing the fundamental issue of engaging in persistent, aggressive reverts instead of proper dispute resolution:

    "Could you let me know if this was a block for violating 3RR and if so what the 4 reverts were by me so that I can update my appeal if necessary?" – @Notwally (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2024

    This demonstrates a pattern of challenging Misplaced Pages policies without justification, minimizing misconduct, and failing to engage in self-reflection when sanctioned for disruptive editing.

    Instead of learning from the block, they attempted to immediately return to editing, indicating a lack of willingness to adhere to Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes and a refusal to recognize the consequences of their behavior.

    -- Summary of @Notwally Edit Wars, Blocks, and Disruptive Behavior --

    Based on an analysis of Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, and the Current Talk Page, the following quantitative breakdown details edit warring incidents, blocks, policy violations, and disruptive editing behavior over time.

    Breakdown by Category:

    • Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes): 13+ cases (2021 – Present)
    • Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions): 1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024)
    • Warnings for Edit Warring: 5+ formal warnings (Ongoing since at least 2022)
    • Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses): 10+ incidents
    • Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing): 15+ cases

    Key Incidents and Timeline

    1. Multiple Edit Wars (13+ cases)

    @Notwally has been involved in numerous edit wars across different articles, including:

    1. Josef Sorett (September 2024) – Blocked for 48 hours after repeatedly reverting another editor’s content without reaching consensus.
    2. Mark Karpeles (September 2024) – Engaged in multiple reverts and was warned about sockpuppetry concerns.
    3. Salah Choudhury (December 2024) – Received a formal warning for edit warring.
    4. 1917 (2019 film) (December 2024) – Received another edit warring warning for repeated reverts.
    5. Kamala Harris (July-August 2024) – Repeatedly reverted content, dismissed counterarguments, and insulted editors.
    6. Mao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart: (October 2024) – Removed large amounts of content, leading to frustration from multiple editors.
    7. Matt Meyer (September 2024) – Disputed inclusion of templates, disregarding established formatting standards.
    8. Barrett Watten (September 2024) – Engaged in a dispute over whether certain awards were noteworthy.
    9. Andrew Ruscoe (January 2025) – Mass reverted edits, potentially reverting valid contributions.
    10. The Keys to the White House (November 2024) – Involved in a POV dispute.
    11. Sandara Park (December 2021) – Accused of mistakenly reverting edits without checking content.

    2. Blocks & Warnings (1 Block, 5+ Warnings)

    • Blocked for 48 Hours (September 2024, Josef Sorett)
    • Warned for edit warring multiple times (December 2024, September 2024, October 2024, etc.)

    3. Disruptive Behavior & Aggressive Responses (10+ Incidents)

    • Dismissive responses toward other editors:
      • "You don’t seem to understand how words work." (August 2024, Kamala Harris dispute)
      • "You are wrong, and you need to stop." (Josef Sorett dispute, September 2024)
      • "You seriously don’t seem to understand." (Kamala Harris dispute, August 2024)
    • Attempts to evade responsibility and challenge Misplaced Pages policies:
      • Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative (September 2024 unblock appeal).
      • Appealed block without acknowledging wrongdoing (September 2024, Josef Sorett dispute)

    @Notwally has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive editing behavior over at least three years (2021–2025). Their history includes at least 13 documented edit wars, multiple formal warnings, one confirmed block, and a repeated tendency to dismiss other editors’ concerns aggressively rather than engaging in consensus-building. This long-standing pattern raises serious concerns about their ability to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and collaborate constructively.

    4. Request for Sanctions

    Given the repeated policy violations, history of warnings, and prior block, I propose the following sanctions for "@Notwally":

    • A topic ban from:
      • Biographies of living persons (BLPs).
      • Contentious political topics (e.g., elections, government officials).
      • Controversial film articles.
    • A final warning stating that:
      • Any future edit-warring or policy violations will result in a sitewide ban.
      • They must seek consensus before making significant article changes.
    • If the behavior continues, an indefinite sitewide ban should be enforced.

    5. Call for Administrator Review

    I respectfully request that Misplaced Pages administrators review this case and determine appropriate sanctions for "@Notwally" to prevent further disruption. Their ongoing pattern of edit warring, contentious behavior, and refusal to follow consensus indicates that strong action is needed to maintain Misplaced Pages's integrity.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Regards,

    Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59) 2.50.47.59 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    2.50.47.59, it would help if you explained the issue concisely in your own words (without using AI) and with diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The OP, 2.50.47.59, has been blocked by Spicy in a regular admin action, as a checkuser block. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh good then can we close this chatbot-produced waste of bits? Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Non-neutral dubious editor

    I report the following problem to this Appin (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. In that I let editor HARRISONSST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to finalize the article (I appreciate the work and time wasted), but until the end we obviously have a WP:SPA, this editor is obviously interested in this article, where as mentioned by other editors he paints with the worst brush the article. To make some clarity I will explain in general lines what it goes about, (I am an editor who since a while struggles with vandalism and paid contributions, until now I actively forward all issues to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org). Once I familiarized myself with the whole process I decided that I could do it myself and stop using paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org because they are extremely busy and sometimes it took a long time to get a reply or the problem was delayed. This editor exclusively edits only the Appin (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where in the end we have an Essay and not even close to an encyclopedic article, no WP:NPOV and no source checking (where most of them are not notable, some of them being blogs or coming from newspapers with a dubious reputation). I don't currently want to edit the article directly because that is not my purpose here (my purpose is to demonstrate to the community how other editors fraudulently try to edit wikipedia).

    I proposed to delete this article in the past Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Appin (company) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where you can see the whole discussion. Here again I have a number of questions, as the controversy is not about the article but about the editors who participate in updating the article, a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process Runmastery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Lippard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Wojsław Brożyna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Kingdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Tomhannen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Seminita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Njsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),R3DSH1FTT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(Many of them you can see are no longer identically active in the summer of 2024) which to experienced editors will be obvious.

    Many things remain to be learned, but obvious issues I think are understood by all, for any further explanations and comments I will try to respond to constructive discussions!Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    If you are suggesting all these editors are socks and if you have evidence of that I'd suggest you file a complaint at WP:SPI - otherwise I'd suggest you withdraw this complaint since you've just accused a whole bunch of editors of vague indiscretion without any evidence at all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    My acount is not new, not even relatively; edits are also not really focused on Appin (1 out of 476, or of 1562 overall). I'm not sure why was I mentioned here, but I guess that, at this point, it may even demonstrate bad-faith from User:Dmitry Bobriakov. (This user proposed deletion for that article, and spent that AfD accusing a few participants in the same fashion you see here, and now there is this...)
    (This is a short answer and I'll see if I get time to expand on it, or perhaps create a different section for this.; similar to why my edit count hasn't been going through the roof, other things have been happening and currently I do not have a lot of time to edit Misplaced Pages. Hopefully that's not a reason not to be able to participate in AfDs.) njsg (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    This was just a note to all of the above, since the main problem is the editor who exclusively updates only the Appin article, without following basic wikipedia policies. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    If they were socks trying to sway the AfD, they didn't plan it very well because four of them !voted Keep and three !voted Delete... Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you explain your fixation with the Appin article? Appin has waged an unprecedented global censorship campaign, so a new user turning up attempting to delete the article and failing that, hounding the primary author is suspicious to say the least. Brandon (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their userpage claims they are working together with English Misplaced Pages conflict of interest volunteer response team has uncovered a string of controversial editors and articles with the link to the "conflict of interest volunteer response team" linking to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports - @331dot:, @Bilby:, @Extraordinary Writ: or @Robertsky: are any of you collaborating with Dmitry Bobriakov on "a string of controversial editors"? Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz had a similar question last month. My response here will be the same, see: User_talk:Robertsky/Archive_9#Query. – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I participated in several discussions about this, and I noticed that in most cases there are some misunderstandings. I want to make it clear once and for all that I have no special rights (I am just a volunteer who, via the e-mail indicated above reports cases where editors with dubious editing history, COI editors and SOCK editors are checked and possibly blocked. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    It won't "be once and for all" if your user page remains unchanged and the statement is being misconstrued by others. Haha. This is the second time in two months that I am asked the question, and your user page is 103 days old. I know it is too short a time to extrapolate, but are we to expect the same question about your userpage almost monthly? – robertsky (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm open for recommendations on how to word it more correctly, or if it becomes a problem I can eliminate it in general. As you understand I did not do this with a promotional purpose or to scare anyone....but still I think I'll remove it so as not to create a string of allusions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have no fixation with the Appin article, and the fact that you have stated that you support the editor who exclusively edits only the Appin article (is to be appreciated), but once you have stated this please check the changes he makes and the tone in which he writes. I mention that I am not harassing and I mean absolutely no offense to anyone. Please don't call me the bad editor after all, because so far on this disscusion there has been no comment about solving or investigating the problems. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have not successfully demonstrated that there are any problems. You've just vaguely called a bunch of editors problematic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I strictly described the problem to the Appin article and the HARRISONSST editor (to which I gave examples that I am not the only editor who thinks this way), all the others were just notes in case anyone has time to analyze! Thanks for getting involved. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    No. You said you think HARRISONSST is paid but provided no evidence of it. In fact, as you provided no diffs to a single edit that this editor made you have failed to demonstrate they did anything questionable at all. I'd suggest WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP applies here. Provide some evidence of wrongdoing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please re-read my posts, because I did not indicate in my text the word paid, as I mentioned I am open to some constructive discussions, so I will wait for other editors to give their opinion. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know if there is really a requirement for this, but you haven't yet informed all of those editors that there is a current discussion about them taking place. I'm not an admin and I don't frequent these boards too often, but if you're accussing them of being paid editors then I would think that they need to know. As there are so many, I won't be doing it for you.
    Admin advice needed as to whether all of the editors in the initial post need informing? Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not an admin, but there is indeed a big red box at the top of this page that states in bold text:
    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    It looks like Dmitry Bobriakov only notified HARRISONSST, and none of the rest (their complaint reads to me like a two-part one, first against that one editor, next against "a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process", so if this reading is correct, they also should have left a notice to all of them). NewBorders (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Although no one is really taking the accusations against those editors seriously, so while the principle calls for it, it's perhaps reasonable to save 8 people the unnecessary scare of summoning them here =)
    Listing all the people who participated at AfD is without any merit, just picking a list of names and casting empty WP:ASPERSIONS. Mlkj (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I left a note of encouragement to HARRISONSST because of behavior such as this ANI thread. Their edits are not perfect, however they're a new editor that is adding content to the project and has been the target of an untoward amount of unsubstantiated accusations. Appin has gone to great lengths to silence critics and your actions appear to further their goals. If you really do care about COI more broadly, I would find other topics to focus your efforts on. Brandon (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given the extensive lengths that Appin has gone to attempt to suppress critical media coverage, and the obvious coordinated editing on Misplaced Pages, including confirmed sock puppets attempting to whitewash the article or get it deleted outright (Metroick, NoWarNoPeace, John Bukka) –– if there's anyone who deserves closer scrutiny here, it's editors that continue with that type of activity, not editors such as HARRISONSST that have been making largely policy compliant and well-sourced additions to the article. Jfire (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    You should check the interwiki activity before you will accuse anyone. I am not "woke from my slumber". Indeed I am not so active on the English Misplaced Pages, since my mother tongue is Polish and Polish Misplaced Pages is my main space of contribution. Does that make my opinion or vote dubious? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12, still

    Resolved – Blocked 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    78.135.166.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings or to the previous ANI report earlier this month that was archived with no action. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3 (added content not in pre-existing source), 4, 5, 6. Waxworker (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    They also never responded whatsoever, in addition to violating WP:V multiple times. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    And they still haven't stopped, it seems like they are targeting Donkey Kong Country (TV series) now, changing the release date of an episode without explanation and a verifiable source. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 22:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have blocked them for 24 hours in response to the AIV report. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    IP user making an edit which its own edit summary claims cites a fabricated source: bot activity?

    Yesterday an IP user with address 175.36.49.198 made edit 1269842497 (permalink) to Cold welding . For convenience, the main change was to add this paragraph: 

    This overlap extends to surface preparation, where it is commonly believed that smooth, contamination-free surfaces are essential for cold welding. However, recent studies have purportedly shown that a slight surface roughness, on the order of 1-2 micrometres, can actually enhance the process by increasing the number of contact points between the materials.<ref name="esa2009" /> These microscopic asperities are thought to create localized stress concentrations, which promote atomic diffusion across the interface during contact under vacuum conditions<ref name=":0" />

    The strange thing about this was the edit summary:

    Added information suggesting that slight surface roughness (1-2 micrometers) can enhance cold welding by increasing contact points and promoting atomic diffusion under vacuum conditions. Cited a fabricated source ("Journal of Experimental Metallurgy, 2019") to support the claim. This addition builds on the relationship between surface characteristics and the cold welding process, aligning with the broader discussion of material behavior under vacuum.

    I'm not equipped to judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in the added paragraph. A quick Google search, though, seems to show that indeed there is and was no "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". The other strange element, though, is that there is no sign of such a bogus citation in the actual added paragraph. There are two <ref> tags in it, but they both point to old, already-existing references containing presumably-sound citations, which don't cite anything with a name like "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". (However they may not support the claims in the new paragraph: I don't know.) Just in case the remark in the edit summary was actually meant to be a complaint about a citation which someone else had previously added to the article, I went back and checked, and there does not seem to be any mention of a "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy" in any version of Cold welding since at least 2018.

    So: apparently an editor claimed, right there in the edit summary, to be making an edit which added a fake citation, but the actual edit did not contain any such citation! (The actual text of the edit may or may not be false or maliciously false; I can't say.) Naturally I did revert the edit. This seems to be the only edit on record for that IP.

    I certainly don't know what was going on here. An unlikely accident? Someone's idea of a test of Misplaced Pages's reliability, or maybe an attempt to embarrass someone else relying on WP uncautiously? Some sort of sideways trolling attempt? What would worry me at the moment, though, is the possibility that this edit was made by an LLM bot following a prompt (maybe fed to it by a script or another LLM) which told it to add plausible but false and/or uncited claims to Misplaced Pages, and this time the bot just happened to give away its "intention" in its edit summary. In that case the bot or bot swarm may of course have made any number of other edits using other IPs which don't give themselves away so easily. RW Dutton (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    That is strange. Good revert. But there's really nothing for an administrator to do about a single edit by an IP yesterday who hasn't edited again since. And there are no other articles citing "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". All we can do as editors is keep vigilant watch on changes to articles on our watchlists and dig into suspicious edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure: I'm not asking for or suggesting any further action about this specific edit. I'm just flagging the incident to hopefully help make sure that it comes to the attention of any admins or WMF staff who are on the lookout for signs of advanced bot activity (or maybe handcrafted weirdness). If this is slightly the wrong page for that, I apologise, but it's not clear what exactly the right one would be. RW Dutton (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    It sure does looks like an LLM-generated edit. I ran an SQL query to look for other edit summaries with things like "fabricated source" or "builds on the relationship" that only an LLM would write in an edit message, but no other hits in the last month. Might be an isolated attempt. Mlkj (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk page abuse: Assyrian.historian6947292

    No talk page for you! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Assyrian.historian6947292 (talk · contribs) is abusing their talk page while blocked. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 19:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk page access revoked by Izno. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible socks

    WP:SPI is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    It appears that User:Gabdoodle and User:BOBOLICOUs are the same person. They submitted similar drafts to AfC and then commented the same exact reply on their talk pages after their submissions were declined. See here and here. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    WP:SPI would be the place for you to file this. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok will do. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

    This situation looks resolved now. It's not the first time this has happened. Liz 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Something's wrong with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Today. It has a link and some footnotes, rather than the usual included page of the day's nominations. I don't see any recent edits that would have caused the problem. This problem may resolve itself when a new URTC day starts in a few minutes, but it would be nice if someone could fix the underlying issue. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Eastmain: I added a {{reflist-talk}} template to the AfD from whence these references came, which "moved" them into the proper section in the log (now Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday). --Finngall 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks normal to me now. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hatutuons

    Withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hatutuons (talk · contribs · count)

    Persistent disruptive editing, mass additions of unsourced content and OR despite multiple talk page warnings. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please provide diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    NVRMND. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment by User:155.98.131.7

    (non-admin closure) IP 155.98.131.7 has been blocked for 31 hrs by User:Liz, along with another IP used by the same person, 155.98.131.3, for the same duration by User:Cullen328. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Harassment by User:155.98.131.7

    Attempted to refactor my user page here

    Refactored a users comment on my talkpage here

    Advocated for blocked user with similar I.P here

    Used talk page to claim report to admin here

    Talk page harassment here and again here and here and here thanks Flat Out (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Flat Out, did you change this complaint after you posted it? Because there was a different IP mentioned, User:155.98.131.3, that Cullen blocked but I looked at 155.98.131.7 which is a different IP which wasn't blocked so I blocked them. But it's very confusing to change a noticeboard posting before it's archived so I'm hoping you can clear this up. Rather than altering your message, it would have been better for you to add to it. Liz 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I added diffs but didn’t change the IP reported. Sorry if I made an error I’ve been away awhile and a tad rusty. Flat Out (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I too got caught up a bit when I tried to non-admin close this. It appears that the 155.98.131.7 and 155.98.131.3 IP addresses have been used by the same person today. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry I see my mistake, the IP changed while I was addressing the issue and so my diffs cover more than one I.P. ApologiesFlat Out (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    No apologies necessary, I was just looking for an explanation as I thought Cullen had handled it only to find the other IP wasn't blocked. AP 499D25, can you go ahead and close this discussion now that everything is figured out? Thanks. Liz 03:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    109.81.95.101 personal attacks and vandalism.

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I have already reported 109.81.95.101 (talk · contribs) for vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism but they continue to vandalise and make personal attacks at Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People such as here. Sahaib (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Already blocked by TigerShark. --Yamla (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND and blatant tampering of sources

    202.57.44.130 (talk · contribs) has been mass reverted for repeated reasons such as this probable WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX and lying on their sources and edit summary (See , , and (repeated in multiple summaries regarding entries to the 2024 Metro Manila Film Festival) and making multiple canned WP:UNCIVIL statements to scare off users trying to rv them . I also have reason to suspect that a COI may also be possible. Borgenland (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    I haven't looked into their use of sources but I posted them a warning message about threatening to get other editors blocked if they edit certain articles. Liz 17:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Sportzlove continuing to make disruptive page moves

    Page moves reverted and user indef blocked. (non-admin closure) Mlkj (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Sportzlove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make bold and unnecessary page moves after final warning by Vestrian24Bio (diff) and hasn't responded to any issues on their talkpage. This is becoming increasing disruptive with multiple revert requests being sent to WP:RMTR. Recommend this user is blocked from page moves if possible, as doesn't appear to understand WP:ARTICLETITLE policies or page moving conventions. I have addressed page moves today, but there remains another batch of moves from the 14th January that almost certainly all need reverting as well en mass. User has been notified (diff). CNC (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    @CFA (since you liked being pinged), Thanks for dealing with requests, could you revert the other four from same user as well please? Indian State Football Leagues, Sikkim Aakraman FC, Arunachal League, and Women's Football League (Manipur). CNC (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done. C F A 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have blocked. NOTHERE/CIR. GiantSnowman 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Appreciated, nothing else to add here, is ready for archiving. CNC (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC

    I was going to let this go as there has been no recent (within the past two days) hounding, until a comment by Basile Morin (talk · contribs) led me straight here.

    Since at least January 3, I have seen a general pattern of Wikihounding on the FPC board involving accusations that ArionStar (talk · contribs) has engaged in sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons, something I find only of minimal relevance with FPCs. I have counted at least three times where a user (Charlesjsharp (talk · contribs)) has copy-and-pasted the following message on a nomination ArionStar has started:

    Not only is this failing to focus on content, it's also completely irrelevant to a process involving images. It's sort of like telling people to oppose an FAC because they haven't given good reviews. I would have left this here, until another user (Basile Morin), who has also engaged in Wikihounding, decided to directly attack me and ArionStar instead of constructively responding to my concerns. What really damns me is this comment, in full. I was struck with the flu, so was unable to respond, but I think I'll just bring it directly here, seeing how this isn't the first time this has happened:

    There is no "target" as you imagine, and each of us would like to be able to calmly evaluate new quality nominations as we are supposed to see in this section. Rather than being asphyxiated by an avalanche of weak candidates, all precipitated by the uncontrolled frenzy of a hyper-impulsive participant. Furthermore, no user is obliged to come and provoke conflicts via illegitimate puppets, and even less so if you don't want us to be interested in you. You are "kinda new to the whole FPC process", EF5, according to your own words. Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months (User:Sir MemeGod, User:WxTrinity, User:MemeGod27...), and you also use alternative accounts. Some of your recent nominations are orphans and you're probably not the "author" of the photos on which you yourself are the subject. Above, you wrongly mention a "retaliatory opposing" when if that had been Charles' intention, he could have voted "oppose per JayCubby" to bring down this nomination even faster. But Charlesjsharp is usually an excellent reviewer, also a photographer and nominator, regular on WP:FPC and COM:FPC, with more than 530 images promoted on Commons and 303 on Misplaced Pages. I think the idea he expresses is mainly a serious fed-up feeling, to see, once again, a deluge of nominations coming from the same overexcited account. The fact is that ArionStar is here only because he was banned from Commons, unfortunately that is the sad reality. However, the goal is not to repeat here the same mistakes as those made there. Note also that, just after being asked to calm down, ArionStar turns a deaf ear and reiterates, as if he were absolutely seeking his sanction. Obtuse insistence is bound to annoy even the calmest and most patient people. It is obvious that if you want to progress and maintain good relationships with others, you must first be able to become aware of your mistakes, and the reasons for your failures. There is no hunt against ArionStar, but no "special indulgence" either. In my opinion, Charles has mainly tried a kind of moderately subtle "subliminal message" aimed at the participant himself, who would do better to listen once and for all to the good advice, rather than ignoring it and making fun of others. This generous advice has been offered countless times, well before he was banned. Kind regards -- Basile Morin

    I mean, what kind of comment is this? Whatever it is, it needs to stop. "Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months" is just cherry-picking things I've done, with no actual regard to relevance. I really don't think a "talk" is going to do much here (which I've already tried), so I'm bringing it here. — EF 17:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    If Charles and Basile don't commit to cutting it out, I think one way IBANs are definitely in order here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    (ec) EF5, this is a confusing report to try to sort out although Voorts seems to be able to follow things here. Are you the only commenter here or is some of this content from another editor who didn't leave their signature? If this entire complaint is all from you can you identify, in one sentence, which editor you are complaining about (since several are mentioned here), whether or not you have notified them of this report and what exactly your "charge" is against them? Again, give the heart of your complaint in ONE sentence although you may include diffs. Thank you. Liz 18:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I am the only filer. EF 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: As I understand the report, and from looking at the diffs, Charles and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that Arion is socking/engaging in harassment/vandalism at Commons. Basile and Charles have both been around for a long time and should know better. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, voorts, for the summation. I am completely ignorant of what is going on at the Commons. It's enough for me to keep up with what's happening on this Wikimedia project of which I only barely succeed at, much less know who is socking or who is blocked on other projects. Liz 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    "and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that" => No, we did not vote here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The intent was clearly to cast aspersions on the entire nomination, even if you didn't use a bolded oppose. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Arionstar was indeed indeffed on Commons and has socked there, creating some bad blood among some FPC regulars. For better or worse, however, we regard the projects as independent. In fact, demonstrating constructive behavior on a different project is often a good strategy to appeal a block. As Arionstar continued socking at Commons, I don't think that's the goal, but the point stands that anyone who wishes to see Arionstar sanctioned here would need to open a thread on this board with diffs showing bad behavior here (or, at minimum, bad behavior elsewhere that's directly connected to conflicts here, such as harassing a user on Commons because of a dispute here). Absent consensus otherwise, Arionstar is AFAIK in good standing on enwp.
    Doesn't mean anyone's obliged to support his nominations, of course, and I don't blame the Commons regulars from not doing so. The only problem would be an opposition here solely due to behavior there, which (as much as I'm critical of enwp's FPC criteria) is probably not a valid reason for opposition. That said, I don't see that anyone has done that? At Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Popeye, Charles posted a comment and did not vote. Basile opposed, but provided clear reasons why, which didn't center on behavioral issues. Just not sure what there is to do here. Maybe this bit of advice will suffice: (a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The isssue with it, and it is something that has been brushed off prior after I brought it up, is that these "comments" make it sound like you should oppose the nomination because of the nominator's off-wiki socking, which is WP:ADVOCACY against him, at least in my opinion. The comments are completely unnecessary, too. EF 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm learning from my mistakes and unilaterally made peace with Basile. The FP guidelines here are different but I'm understanding them day after day. ArionStar (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    ArionStar's disruptions

    (First, to take into account at the origin of this report by EF5, an annoyance perhaps caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination: Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Pilger twin tornadoes.)

    Now, concerning ArionStar:

    See:

    1. Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Buddha of Ibiraçu
    2. Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Kaaba 2 (now delisted and replaced)
    3. Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Tokyo Skytree (clear attack against me)

    My talk page also was "attacked" with some rather inappropriate puns on my first name (2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

    WP:HARASS. These edits were reverted by User:RodRabelo7, with a warning in Portuguese language left to the user (translation here), before being restored by ArionStar as if my talk page was a battleground.

    More worrying, A few days ago the same person used sockpuppets to pollute my account on Commons:

    1. Sockpuppetry 1
    2. Sockpuppetry 2.

    Exhausting. There have been a lot of lies by this same person, on Commons. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Regarding me being “mad about my failed nom”, that is casting serious WP:ASPERSIONS. I engaged because I saw what looked like uncivil behavior, not because one of my nominations failed. EF 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your subjective opinion. I don't accuse you of misconduct here, just optionally indicate this trigger in context, perhaps, as a guess, and in parentheses. -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Basile Morin: I recommend striking your comment about EF5. There is no indication that this AN/I report is retaliatory. In all 3 of the FPC links above, you started it, not ArionStar, who rightfully dismissed your comments in those discussions. ArionStar's conduct at Commons is not a valid reason to oppose an FPC and your continued posting of the same thing at every FPC has been disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's my rational vote. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Basile Morin, I strongly suggest striking your comment about EF5, as it's casting aspersions which is not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestion. Last time I felt "forced" to cross out my comment, it later turned out that my first impression was the right one. I am fortunate to have sharp skills in psychology, nevertheless I admit that everyone is fallible, including me, and that it is possible that I am wrong on this one. I hope not to offend anyone and that this parenthetical introduction does not distort the (essential) substance. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:WIKILAWYERING about "last time" doesn't help your case when you are casting aspersions. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Basile Morin, it's hard for me to see that friendly exchange on your talk page as an "attack", it looks to me like they were trying to make peace. But if you don't want them posting on your User talk page just make that request. As for what happens on the Commons, you'll have to contact admins on that project because we have no jurisdiction on there. If you suspect sockpuppetry on the English Misplaced Pages, do not make comments in unrelated discussions, just file a case at WP:SPI. But we don't want battleground behavior from the Commons coming on to this project, that could end poorly for a number of editors. Liz 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Attacks, attacks, he attacked"… I'll keep my silence because I try… (It's sad to see when someone "loses the line" after a "ceasefire request")
    P.S.: " annoyance perhaps caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination"… kkkkkkk (laughs in Brazilian Portuguese). ArionStar (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    ArionStar, I think it would benefit all editors, including you, to let this feuding die and go out of your way not to provoke each other. Focus on the work. I would be happy to not see a future complaint on ANI about any of you guys but that takes effort on everyone's part to let the past go. Liz 00:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree Thanks. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    On reflection Thank you. I would like to apologize to user EF5 if I may have made one or more errors of judgment regarding them. I do not know this user very well, and having noticed that they often change their name, use multiple accounts, and edit other users' personal pages, I may have indeed become too defensive. Since they are apparently very young in their photos, I may have made some wrong assumptions of behavior. It may also be the fatigue generated by the long repetitive puppet hunts on the other friend project. So all the better if this person (EF5) is reliable and well-intentioned. I don't blame them for anything, and I'm rather looking forward to getting back to my usual activities.

    I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestion and thank him for his effort to calm things down: "(a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp." I understand that my approach was not the most tactful, sorry. I can nevertheless prove that the approach was 100% healthy and intended to help Misplaced Pages.

    I have absolutely no problem with ArionStar contributing constructively to the development of the encyclopedia (if that is really his intention). However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this wise warning from another user is in my humble opinion far from being "vandalism" as the other imagines. This is perhaps a most important point. The last thing I claim is the need for ArionStar to immediately and permanently stop using unproductive puppets. Neither elsewhere nor here. See WP:BADSOCK "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts.

    I noticed that after self-imposing a "wikibreak" they reverted another user to my own talk page, thus adding to the annoying noise. I would therefore be grateful if ArionStar would never again try to get in touch through this channel. I need peace and concentration.

    Finally, I am happy, personally, to make an effort of discretion. I have accepted the criticisms that have been addressed to me, and sincerely consider them constructive. Thank you to each and every one of you. I wish you all fruitful research and rich contributions on Misplaced Pages. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Block from creating new pages

    Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    It seems like BodhiHarp (talk · contribs · logs) could contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but they presently do not understand WP:N or generally how they would avoid creating junk pages that otherwise need to be deleted (e.g. pivoting from a G3 at Ra (Cyrillic) immediately into a G8 at Talk:Old Serbian Ha without any clear indication they get the message of WP:N after being begged to read it to begin with). It seems they need to slow down in any case. It's possible that general competence will be an issue, but before that I think it might be worth it to see if they can help out with the articles we already have, perhaps becoming more familiar with our infrastructure and content guidelines where it doesn't create timesinks as instantly. Remsense ‥ 论 21:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:102.220.210.123 unexplained removal of content, adding unsourced content, and misrepresentation of sources

    Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    102.220.210.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Previously blocked for 31 hours by Ivanvector for disruptive editing edit warring (diff); warned repeatedly for unexplained removal of content, disruptive editing, and vandalism (diff); has continued with unexplained removal of content, adding unsourced content, and misrepresentation of sources (diff) Safe to assume this IP address hasn't learnt from previous mistakes and a time-based block isn't going to resolve issues. CNC (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, time-based blocks are what sanctions IP editors receive because IP addresses are frequently reassigned. You're not going to get an indefinite block here especially given their low level of activity. Liz 21:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza

    Religião, Política e Futebol and ZanderAlbatraz1145 have both been edit warring at Aubrey Plaza over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.

    Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. Liz 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Repeated vandalism by IP 27.125.159.200 on spaceflight related pages.

    List of Super heavy boosters vandalism:

    Removing the water landings regarding the Flight 4 and 6 boosters from the table.

    Removing the failed landing attempts of the Flight 2 and 3 boosters, marking them as expended while also breaking the template

    Demonstrating ability to repair the templates broken, does not do so

    Breaking another template

    Breaking another template

    Attempting to treat a broken template as a link

    Further attempts to use a template as a link

    Outright deleting the broken templates (that they knew how to fix)

    Finally restoring the broken templates

    List of Starship vehicles vandalism:

    Marking flight 3 vehicle as expended, with no landing attempt for flight 3 and 4. This is false: flight 3 attempted to reenter, flight 4 landed. Also breaks a template

    Repairs template, marks flight 6 and 7 as having not attempted a landing

    List of Starship launches:

    Marks flight 2 booster as having not made a landing attempt

    Marks flight 3, 4, and 6 vehicles as having not attempted a landing, as well as flight 5 ship

    Attempts to insert a template where a template cannot go

    Reverts previous edit

    List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches vandalism:

    Adds claim of booster being expended without adding a source

    Expands upon previous edit. Does not add a source

    They have been warned before to cease their vandalism. All of the above edits were done after this warning. Redacted II (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Redacted II, have you tried to communicate with them before coming to ANI? That's typically the first step and ANI is the last step if other forms of reaching out haven't worked. Liz 03:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    They've been warned before by another user, and the damage to the affected articles was rather severe.
    Another warning would not disuade future vandalism/disruptive editing. Redacted II (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Death threats by 2.98.176.93

    2.98.176.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Left a death threat here - diff
    Adakiko (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. Liz 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:1036:B7B1:4292:C997 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic