Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 01:53, 15 March 2022 view sourceEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,833 edits →Ban evasion by HarveyCarter: Binksternet, your reports are too long!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:44, 24 January 2025 view source The Bushranger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators157,905 edits →Repeated WP:GS/AA violations: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Page for discussing incidents that may require action by administrators and experienced editors}} {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header}}</noinclude>__TOC__{{clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 800K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1093 |counter = 1177
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2 |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
Line 15: Line 16:
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->


== ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles ==
== Appeal against ] ==
{{atop|This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at ] if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against ]. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at ]. ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:16, 22 January 2025 (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.


* was deleted for ]
I would like to appeal against ]. --] (]) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{reply|Emir of Misplaced Pages}} Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal :) ] 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for hatting. :) --] (]) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
:::I would like to start off by saying that I totally admit my actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard and that I should have tried to work on this situation before it ended up getting to here. My actions need to be considered in the full context as reactions too. Firstly it seems a bit of a ] to classify my behaviour as simply disruptive editing when there was disagreement in the the original case, some think it seems to be behavioural towards another editor and some think it is a content dispute with another editor. If it is either of those then I think a way for the editors to work together should be put in place instead of a blanket ban on a single good-willed editor of the two. With regards to the first point (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd) these are supported by the source. If another editor thinks the wording is misleading, biased, or unencyclopedic then they should politely offer alternatives. With regards to the second point I have challenged the sentence, which shows it is controversial. It is not for another editor to just discount my challenge and say it is not controversial. The third point shows me trying to engage with the editor on the talkpage. With regards to the sixth point this is clearly a difference of opinion between two editors. Another editor not liking them does not mean I am being disruptive. With regards to the first point (Amber Heard), ] says "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." and ] says to be careful with self-published sources when they are self-serving or exceptional.. The editor admits to this bit leading to constructive moments and then improves the article after realising what I had pointed out. Just because something is sourced it does not mean it is due in the lead. With regards to the third point that is what the source says as per the quote. I admit that the actual information may have ended up being outdated with the information we have now. That is what was available at the time it is not me (whether that be a he or she) misrepresenting what the source says, information can change over time. As can be seen on both article talkpages I have tried to work with the other editor on this. Already pointed out in the original discussion but OK Magazine had not been to RS/N at the time this was brought against me. I can not remember using my edit count to "jerk around" another the editor, especially considering their accounts seems to have been created years before mine. --] (]) 20:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
*You say at the beginning you acknowledge that your "actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard", but then don't mention that again; the rest of the appeal is based, if I understand correctly, primarily on the idea that the original page blocks were incorrect because you were right on the underlying content issue. Even though 4 admins independently saw your behavior as problematic, and 3 admins explicitly endorsed the page blocks? That approach seems unlikely to result in a successful appeal. I can't speak for the other admins who commented originally, but my own concerns were about you repeatedly reverting without explanation or discussion, and playing ] games on the article talk page to stonewall the discussion. Particularly irksome was seeing you revert with the rationale "my version is better", when your version was not in comprehensible English. It's possible that if I had had more time during the original discussion I would have suggested a stern warning to knock it off rather than partial blocks, but the blocks were certainly reasonable, and now that they've been made, I'd want to see those behavioral issues addressed before I would support an appeal. --] (]) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
::It is not based on the idea that I am correct or incorrect on the "underlying content issue". If there is a content ] there are other avenues to go rather that claiming an editor has allegedly used the edit count to bully an editor who has an account older than them and to say that is "disruptive editing". As shown on the talkpages I have tried to work with editor and I am sorry for not raising this at one of those venues when it seemed to reach a brickwall against each other. xTools shows me as the the editor who has made the most contributions to and . I am not sure in what world having done around a fifth and a third of the articles respectively and being the biggest contributor after the other editor is disruptive. ] (]) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Comment: While Emir does show up on that list as #2, it’s because few editors have shown interest in the article. I have not seen Emir add anything substantial to the article.] (]) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
::::I am trying to be polite, but respectfully you are not the sole arbiter who determines if I have added anything substantial or not. If other editors have thanked me for my edits it shows that they must have though there was some good in them. --] (]) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::] {{Small|1='''Bumping thread'''&#32;for 7 days. ] (]) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 19:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1647371160}} --] (]) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
===Discussion re fora===
{{hat|Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO {{nac}} ] 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)}}
:It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an ] request on your talk page. ] ] 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --] (]) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
{{hat|Per {{noping|Jayron32}}, and ] to the OP's question: {{tq|No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template}}. {{nac}} ] 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) }}
:::Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. ] (]) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::To create a unblock request: copy and paste this:
<pre>


* on ] and ] grounds
{{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~


* on ] and ]
</pre>
::::Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. ]]] 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? ] (]) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. ] ] 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{edit conflict}} In addition to Canterbury Tail, it will probably not, due to the fact that this is a noticeboard, not a page for appealing blocks. ]]] 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? ] (]) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? ]&nbsp;]] 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Misplaced Pages version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. ] (]) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. ] 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::{{edit conflict}} There is no other place to appeal your partial block, there is a block notice, and you can appeal it below the block notice. This is how other blocked or partially blocked users do. ]]] 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. ] (]) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. ] 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a ] anywhere other than your talkpage? ] (]) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).] (]) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice ] though. ] (]) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
*Is there a page besides EoW's talk page where I can decline his unblock request? --] (]) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
*:Unfortunately, no. ]]] 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


*They've been warned about ] and .
*<s>I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. ] - ] 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)</s>
*: doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, {{u|Floquenbeam}} said it was behavioral, not a content dispute, {{u|Mjroots}} said how about a ], and {{u|El C}} said done. Then {{u|Jayron32}} endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? ]&nbsp;] 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
*::Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. ] - ] 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. ] (]) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Emir of Misplaced Pages}} Adding onto what ] said above, if you'd like an unblock request to be given serious consideration by an administrator (or the community, assuming broader input is needed), you need to make a point of addressing exactly ''why'' you were blocked in the first place, ideally by demonstrating that you understand how your past actions were problematic, and committing yourself to avoiding repetition of the same conduct in the future. Some other things that are generally taken into consideration when an administrator reviews an unblock request include the amount of time that has elapsed since the block was placed, along with your activity in other areas of Misplaced Pages within that same interval, and your overall editing history. This block was implemented only a few weeks ago, and the main reason for its existence is because your editing of those two articles was ] in nature&mdash;unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles&mdash;or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. ] ] 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
*The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and ''never have been''. Literally, the page ] states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Misplaced Pages can request the review here, ''he's quite allowed to do so''. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Misplaced Pages has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --]] 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
* I agree entirely with Jayron32, both on the procedural question and the merits. A cardinal rule for requesting an unblock is that you have give some kind of rationale--the block was improper, I'm sorry and I've learned my lesson, the cabal (TINC) is out to get me. ] ] 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

* I'd like to see a rationale as mentioned by by other editors here. ] <sup>'']'' &#124; '']''</sup> 14:47, 25 February 2022 (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.
::To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in ] that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full ''mea culpa'' on my part. ] (]) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:::It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if ] becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --]] 16:07, 25 February 2022 (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)
::::By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Misplaced Pages can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) ] (]) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::{{done}} ] 16:17, 25 February 2022 (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)
::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)
::Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. ] 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. ] (]) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. ] 19:11, 21 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 "]," 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)
* 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)

:*'''Comment:''' While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. ]. ] 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 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}} {{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)
{{abot}}


== Stalking == == Me (DragonofBatley) ==


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)
I’m a longtime Wikipedian, a retired handyman in New Jersey. I’ve written hundreds of articles for 12+ years. I’ve never taken money for my contributions. I've uploaded 3000+ images and declared almost all of them to be public domain. I edit using my real name. I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. But editor {{U|Melcous}} has been using my past mistakes as an excuse to stalk everything I do here, claiming that I have a conflict of interest on such subjects as (an anti-corruption organization) or (a deceased NY Times photo editor) or undoing my work on
: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)
(an educator) or (a filmmaker) or (a deceased tech executive) or (a YouTuber) or restoring notability tags on the nonprofit . I have no connection with any of these subjects. Melcous didn’t edit these articles until ''after'' I edited them. It’s a consistent pattern of ]. Please cause Melcous to stop this harassment.--] (]) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: I'm also a fairly long term wikipedian, and I'm happy for someone to look into my editing and let me know if I have crossed any lines. When I notice certain types of formatting/] edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. I would also note that my greater concern, and encouragement to {{u|Tomwsulcer}}, has been to properly respond to COI concerns raised and disclose them. There have been two threads at ] (] and ]) where concerns have been raised about his edits. As noted by other editors including {{u|Wizzito}} and {{u|SVTCobra}}, both times he has chosen to disappear from editing from a period of time, and reappear after the threads have gone stale and been archived, so the issues have not been resolved. Thank you ] (]) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (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)
::You've been stalking me.--] (]) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::I don't think it's stalking imho. I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking', 'it's all sourced' (articles can be sourced but still have tone/grammar issues, etc.), and stuff like that. ] &#124; ] 05:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's nice that you think you need to be "humble" - but in actual fact you were right when you said "I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking'".
:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
::::Tomwsulcer needs a block more than help for some imaginary offence. I'm astonished he stuck his head up in this way, but I have confidence in the correct result of this self-destructive posting. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 13:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
: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.
:This seems like a very straight forward case of ]. <small>{{re|Tomwsulcer}} We generally shy away from using the term "stalking" now in reference to editors following each other around onwiki.</small> {{re|Melcous}} Don't do what you are doing. If you want to start a new COIN thread, by all means. However, it is very inappropriate to just unilaterally tag all of an editors contributions with COI. ]ING is not okay in any situation, and you should instead try to open a dialogue with the respective editors. If that doesn't work, you can escalate to a noticeboard, but don't follow the editor around the project. {{eC}} &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
: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.
:: I'm happy to follow this advice and will bow out from here if possible, but it would be good to at least be honest in what we are talking about. I have not {{tq|"unilaterally tagged all of an editor's contributions with COI"}}. There were exactly ''two'' articles here that I tagged for COI, one out of a discussion at ] after the editor had inserted promotional wording about the subject into multiple unrelated articles, and the other because it was the first article created after he returned to editing after failing to deal with the ] thread and I noted this on the talk page. I'm reluctant to start a new COIN thread when it seems that all an editor needs to do is "wait it out" and the issue gets ignored. ] (]) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: If you started another COIN thread, and Tom just waited it out, then that would be ] which you could report here.<br />Semantics of what you tagged vs. copy-edited aside, were all made within minutes of each other. If I was Tom, I'd be rightfully upset about that. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:41, 7 March 2022 (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)
::A straightforward case of WP:HOUND? Forgive me if I laugh. How much research did you do? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 12:43, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::Apparently, more than you {{shrug}}<br />No one in this thread has said what happened ''wasn't'' a case of ]. The only disagreement was how justified Melcous was in doing so. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:44, 7 March 2022 (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)
::::Actually, MJL, ]/] (same thing) describes hounding as being "''...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor.''" So no, you are wrong - if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not ]. ] (]) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Oh, and I'll just add that "''Nobody denied the accusation I made''" is never a valid justification for an accusation. ] (]) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::::@]: Okay, in reverse order: (1) Melcous literally admitted to following Tom around: {{tq|When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise.}} That's a straightforward definition of a pattern of behavoir which can be seen as hounding depending on the circumstance. However, instead of being like "Melcous literally admitted to following." <small>(which would've required I get a diff or provide the exact quote for)</small> I said "No one here has contested following has happened." because it would be absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say otherwise when ''Melcous literally admitted to following.''<br />(2) It is amazing to me that I can say how the only disagreement here is whether Melcous was justified in following Tom around, and for you to tell me I'm wrong because {{tq|if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not ]}}. Like, yeah.. I know. While I understand that you feel otherwise, I ''don't'' think Melcous was justified in this months-long quest to get Tom to answer for things he did ] - which is what the ] was about ''and'' the thing Melcous thought was important enough to in the second COIN thread <small>(ignore my choice of diff; COIN was oversighted)</small>. Yeah, sorry, but no. We're almost five months out from the original COIN thread which was based off things which happened 8-11 years ago, and we're a month out since the second COIN thread. That Melcous used those events as the excuse to follow Tom around as recently as ''two days ago'', is not only ''buck wild'', it's ''borderline obsessive''.<br />(3) Are you really just going to say hounding and following are the same thing? One is negative, and the other is neutral. The policy goes into detail about both. {{tq|Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.}} Make sense? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:57, 8 March 2022 (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)
::::::No, I'm obviously not saying that hounding and following (as used in English) are the same thing, I am saying that in Wikispeak ] and ] are links to the same paragraph, which is ]. In this reply you are still using "following" (English) as justification for your accusation of ] (Wikispeak). And yes, the policy does go into detail as to what is acceptable following and what is not, but that is an explanation of what is and what is not considered hounding. Did you also notice that Melcous got no help in those ] threads? Melcous did the right thing, but nobody cared, and Tomwsulcer was just allowed to sit it out and carry on his COI editing without hindrance. Is it any wonder Melcous felt alone and saw ] as a waste of time? That's my big gripe here, that Melcous followed the proper procedures, got absolutely nowhere with them, and then when she tried to address the problems she saw directly (because she was getting no help), she was accused of stalking (and then of ] and ] here at ANI where people are supposed to examine issues in a fair and balanced manner). The initial response here was from people piling in without properly examining the whole situtation, the background, and the wider picture. Sadly, that's what ANI is like these days - there are too many here who are ready to jump on any accusation they see without putting in the effort to investigate it properly. And that makes me angry. Thankfully, someone did care enough to investigate properly, and found that the concerns that led Melcous to follow and review Tomwsulcer's edits are well founded. And yes, Melcous was still following and correcting Tomwsulcer's COI violations ''days ago''. That's because they were still happening ''days ago''. It has been going on ''for years''. Frankly, I'm disappointed by your responses and your lack of self-reflection here, MJL, instead just doubling down on your flawed accusations. But I've said enough, and I know I would get nowhere trying to challenge the poisonous atmosphere at ANI. Thank you, at least, for listening. ] (]) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (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)
*<s>Definitely a case of ]. Melcous needs to agree to stop following Tomwsulcer around.</s> ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 05:11, 7 March 2022 (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)
*:Definitely? In that case I'm sure you can back up that assertion with diffs? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 12:56, 7 March 2022 (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)
*::{{Re|Begoon}} Tomwsulcer provided seven in their initial comment. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 13:39, 7 March 2022 (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)
*:::Seven what? There's some external links in that post but I have no idea how that's supposed to be an answer to my question. Can you elaborate? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
:::These are good points.
*::::Seven diffs. Diffs of Melcous making what appear to be rather superfluous revisions of Tomwsulcer's contributions. One alone might not mean much, but seven separate occasions is a pattern of harassment. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
:::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)
*:::::But did you bother to check them to see if they really were superfluous, look beyond those specific diffs to the wider recent editing of those articles, or check to see if Tomwsulcer does actually have any undeclared connections with any of the subjects before jumping on the accusing bandwagon? No, you didn't, did you? Without making any actual effort to properly check, your "''Definitely a case of ]''" comment is just a lazy throwaway accusation. ] (]) 15:41, 7 March 2022 (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)
*::::::I did check, thank you very much.
::::::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)
*:::::: - Tagging a COI despite zero proof/evidence from a ].
::::::::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)
*:::::: Removing details from references for no reason.
::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Amongst the rest, it is at the very least borderline hounding. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 16:03, 7 March 2022 (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)
*:::::::So in your checking, you didn't find the clear COI violation at ] which Tomwsulcer has since admitted, and the indirect connection with ]? You didn't notice the excessive quoting and the puffery that Melcous was removing? No, your checking was not remotely sufficient for a "''Definitely a case of ]''" conclusion. ] (]) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (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)
*:::::::Oh, and the removal at was not for no reason - Melcous clearly gave a reason in the edit summary. You might not agree with it, but that's a content disagreement and not evidence of ]. ] (]) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (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'm striking my comment in light of the misconduct by Tomwsulcer below. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 09:11, 8 March 2022 (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)
*{{ping|Tomwsulcer}} Do you have any undeclared personal connection to ]? (I note you said, above, "''I have no connection with any of these subjects''", but I want to ask you specifically about this one just in case you had forgotten anything). ] (]) 11:59, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::I hired her to narrate my audiobook. I paid her. She didn't pay me for a Misplaced Pages article; I did it on my own on a volunteer basis. So there's no financial connection; there's no conflict of interest. But pretty much everything I write about, and every person I put into Misplaced Pages, I have some kind of connection with, if you'd like to get philosophical about it. I'm a New Jerseyan; so I'm predisposed to write about New Jersey subjects. I'm an American; I tend to write about Americans and American-type issues. I think everybody here is like me in that way -- we write about what we know. I've never accepted money for anything I do in Misplaced Pages. My policy is to try to get everybody who qualifies for a wiki-article into Misplaced Pages. If I met you Boing! on Tour, at a coffee shop, and within a few minutes, if we got to talking, I'd be wondering how I could get you into Misplaced Pages; if you'd qualify, you'd be there. It's just how I am.--] (]) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (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)
::::It's not about being philosophical (which is the line you took last time, if I remember correctly), it's about direct personal connections with the subjects you write about. And COI is not just about financial connections, or about being paid. It's about any connection that might lean an author to writing favourably or unfavourably about a subject, rather than from a neutral point of view. You *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and when you said "''I have no connection with any of these subjects''" that was not the truth. I see also that Molly Secours worked at ], so can you see how there might appear to be an undisclosed connection there too? How your direct personal connection with Molly Secours might lean you towards writing favourably about that organisation? You want to try to get everybody you know who you think might warrant it an entry into Misplaced Pages, and that's just the way you are? That is *not* the way Misplaced Pages is - or, at least, doing it without declaring your connections is not the way Misplaced Pages is. When you have connections with people you write about (like the very blatant connection with Molly Secours), you *must* declare it. ] (]) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::::Well I have connections with pretty much everybody. And so do you, and so does everybody. We're all connected. For example, take ]. I read about her death in the NY Times. I felt ''sorry'' that she died in a bicycle accident. So I put her in Misplaced Pages. Are you saying that I should *declare* my 'connection' with this subject? It's a good article. Do you think I need to *declare* my 'relationship' with her, that I felt sorry that she died? If we make that a requirement, then I think everybody here in Misplaced Pages will spend half of their time declaring their associations, and they won't have any time left to build this great encyclopedia. Straubel belongs in Misplaced Pages. Or take ]; everything I wrote is referenced; she belongs here too. Is the article fair? Take a look. I simply said what the sources were saying. I agree about close family members; even though I write using my real name, I should have been more forthcoming that ] was my late father. So I question the assumption that *any* connection that any of us has to anything here in Misplaced Pages invariably brings about bias or unfair coverage, and that simply is not the case. Why? Because of the requirements for ] and ] and the ]. We can't just say *anything* about anybody we want to. There are rules. I follow the rules. That's why very few, if any, of my hundreds and hundreds of articles I've written here ever been deleted.--] (]) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (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)
::::::Oh come on Tom, don't be so disingenuous. No, if you had no personal connection with ] then of course you don't have to declare any interest. But you *do* have a direct personal connection with ], and you dishonestly told us here in this very discussion that you did not. And it has got *nothing to do* with the quality of what you write or whether it is sourced - ] does not have an "''unless you write good stuff that's well referenced''" clause. The ] article as you left it was packed with excessive quotes, laced with puffery, and read to me as though it was written to show her in as favourable a light as possible. Melcous improved it considerably with some warranted pruning, and ended up being accused of stalking as a result. You can disagree with ] policy as it is written, but unless you can get it changed then you *must* follow it. ] (]) 14:14, 7 March 2022 (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)
::::::Just to add... ] is not about "''Man, I'm at one with the universe, and I have a connection with everything...''" waffle. No, it is quite specific, and you should read it. Its very first sentence says "''Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships''". Tom, you have a clear employer/client financial relationship with ], and you dishonestly denied it. I can envisage someone suggesting sanctions against you (maybe some sort of BLP restriction) unless you can show you understand and accept that, and that you will adhere carefully to ] policy in the future. ] (]) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 13:32, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::::Please see my previous comment.--] (]) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (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)
::::::Which previous comment?
::::::], ], ] (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)
::::::Is there a reason you can't just answer my question? I didn't think it was hard.
:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm confused now. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 14:11, 7 March 2022 (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)
:::::::Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the ] policy in the future.--] (]) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (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)
::::This almost doesn't need to be said since you already pledged to better adhere to ] for the future, but having ''any'' financial relationship with someone (past or present) generally means you have a COI with them. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:46, 7 March 2022 (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)
:I think my main issue with ] is why the opening sentence of "{{xt|...is a Nashville-based filmmaker, author, and activist}}" requires six citations after it. Anyway, I haven't investigated the problems with Tomwsulcer, but I just want to mention to Melcous that that put {{tlx|cn}} tags into an article but are disguised by the edit summary "copyedit" are unhelpful. In this instance, I would recommend doing the tagging in a separate edit with a summary like "cannot find a source for this" or "the given source does not state the claim specifically, need another one" or something like that. ] ] ] 17:00, 7 March 2022 (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)
::That looks like genuinely good copy editing to me - and did you see the peacock drivel it removed? It might indeed be better to do the {{tlx|cn}} changes separately with a separate edit summary, but I think suggesting it was "disguised" is a poor choice of words as it implies deliberate obfuscation. ] (]) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (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 agree, and I did - it was just a suggestion. As for Tomwsulcer, I would suggest they have ] issues and need to stop giving slippery and evasive answers to questions, or as it will probably end up with a block. ] ] ] 17:30, 7 March 2022 (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.
I'm reluctant to comment here because I've already had one unpleasant encounter with Tomwsulcer but I think my experience may help illustrate the issues. On ], I removed a statement that was not supported by the source given. Tomwsulcer re-added it with additional sources but none that supported the specific claim. I started a discussion on the talk page but Tomwsulcer did not participate. Instead, on the talk page of ], asking "Do gay men endure discrimination in Misplaced Pages?" which suggested that I, a gay woman, was removing his edits because I am homophobic. I an experienced user for advice and they posted a message to Tomwsulcer's talk page. It was removed unanswered. I assume that Tomwsulcer is trying, in his own way, to improve Misplaced Pages, but it is frustrating to work with someone who will not communicate and/or is passive aggressively attacking you. ] (]) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
:That's quite troubling. Tomwsulcer, what was your intention with that edit on an unrelated talk page? Were you canvassing for help or genuinely accusing Polycarpa of being homophobic for removing an unsupported statement? '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::I'm sure @] will be along to shed light on that shortly, but in case they missed it I've taken the liberty of adding a courtesy 'ping'. I do hope it's received - but I have faith because we're all connected to everyone, after all...<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 10:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
:::He has stated that he is no longer editing, so I doubt he will be here. This is not the first time he has cast aspersions on an editor for trying to uphold WP's notability guidelines. didn't seem to get picked up before. '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
::::It's not the first time he's tried to duck repercussions by disappearing either, only to reappear when he thinks the heat might have died down. Just my opinion, but I really think it would be a very good idea, by now, to make that tactic less easy. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::I was thinking of proposing a topic ban (probably on BLPs) for Tomwsulcer, but didn't know enough about the situation to suggest which sanction, if any, was appropriate. Do you think we should proceed with suggesting such a thing. ] ] ] 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::I'd propose a site ban, personally, because I don't think the bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". But I'll leave it to others because I'm loathe to commit the sort of time that would obviously be necessary, given the bizarre, shallow, knee-jerk 'defences' above, and also I'm no longer a "regular" so tend to consider such a proposal a bit outside my current remit. Misplaced Pages is very bad at removing bad actors like this. That's one of the reasons I don't participate much any more. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 12:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::Begoon speaks for me on this matter. ] 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Accusations of stalking or hounding ''cannot be a defense against misconduct'' if Misplaced Pages is to function, and dealing with another editors' mistakes and issues cannot be considered stalking. There's abundant evidence above and in his contributions Tomwsulcer "doesn't get" COI policies, willfully or deliberately, and if this thread is to be closed it should be with restrictions against ''him'', not Melcous. Simply because this thread is just a repetition of existing patterns and Tom's editing has been problematic for years (his image contributions are promotional at best, copyright violations at worst), I would recommend a site ban. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


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)
===Proposal: Site ban===
{{archive top|result=There is a clear consensus that Tomwsulcer should be banned from Misplaced Pages, and he has supported the idea himself. ] (]) 20:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)|status=BANNED}}
Okay, let's formally propose that '''Tomwsulcer is banned from Misplaced Pages. They may appeal this ban after six months, and if unsuccessful, every subsequent year thereafter'''. Comments, please. ] ] ] 19:32, 8 March 2022 (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)
*'''Question''' I'm a bit confused here. I've had my run ins with Tomwsculcer and I'm sure we are both certain the other editor was a civil POV pusher. But Tom has a clean block log and while they were violating COI I can probably see how one might think, absent reading the policy, that they didn't have a COI etc. Is a site block really the least intrusive way we can protect Misplaced Pages in this case? Would it be better to issue a clear warning with a stated escalation plan? ] (]) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (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)
*<s>Oppose</s> '''Support'''. I was envisioning a restriction on BLP edits, perhaps with new articles submitted via AFC and a clear commitment to adhere to ] policy (rather than just "I'll try"). But no, Tom is editing in good faith despite his chronic policy failures (and, yes, his original dishonesty in this discussion), and I think a site ban would be excessive at this point. ] (]) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I've changed my mind after seeing the SPI at ]. Tom was socking as recently as January 2022 to hide his continued COI editing. Given that the previous COIN discussion had been in November 2021, I can't possibly accept this was a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment. No, I think I'm a soft touch at times, but this has eliminated any possibility in my mind that Tom was acting in good faith here. It was an obviously deliberate attempt to evade the COI policy that he had no excuse for not understanding at that time. ] (]) 21:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Ban is not warranted in my opinion. ]<sup>(])</sup> 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''', not only for the issues pointed out above (including the "original dishonesty") and the disappearing to avoid sanctions tactic, but also because of the worrying discussion with Begoon above: Begoon asks then "Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better?", to which they only can answer "Please see my previous comment" (which, as Begoon points out, doesn't seem to be an answer), and then "Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future." which again doesn't answer the question, leaving me with the impression that they ''have'' used their editing to make friends and family look better here, but that they are not willing to admit it or to indicate where they did this. No thanks, we don't need people here who use these tactics and don't even want to make amends when it is (again and again) pointed out that such editing is not acceptable, but instead attack the ones trying to uphold our policies. ] (]) 08:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I am puzzled about this because I feel like the opening statement ''does'' address the question: {{tq| I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those.}} --] (]) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:: was last month. , admittedly is a little older, but, quite honestly, wtf? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::I get it, I'm just saying "didn't address the question" doesn't seem to be the problem. --] (]) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''', obviously, given my comments above. I don't believe that "Tom is editing in good faith", Boing, I'm sorry but I just don't. Good faith would be demonstrated by owning the issues, some sadly absent honesty, and showing some real understanding of why they were wrong, with a meaningful, credible commitment to avoid such issues going forwards. None of that is in evidence. An indefinite block, rather than site ban, ''might'' serve to enforce that, but limited "Tbans" really don't seem sufficient here. I'd also ask anyone closing this thread to note a couple of the comments above this "formal proposal" which seem to support it (and, of course, those which don't). <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 11:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Yes, fair points there. I was thinking good faith in that I think he genuinely wants to write nice stuff about people, whether has has a COI or not. But as for good faith regarding Misplaced Pages standards, no, he has clearly been deliberately trying to circumvent them. I recall a similar problem with his approach to copyright at Commons, where he essentially argued that we should ignore copyright law because everybody else was doing so. ] (]) 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*::Quite. I'm sure Tom's a lovely chap, the type who, if I lent him my lawnmower, would scrupulously clean and oil it before handing it back. We're not discussing that here though - we're considering whether he's a good fit for, or a continual detriment to wikipedia, and whether his bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". I don't think it is, but if he turned up and said something that ''genuinely'' addressed those concerns in a credible and convincing way I'd rescind my support for a ban in a heartbeat. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Tom has edited about family members and friends and this has been mentioned in a previous COIN report. These were around ten years ago and I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood COI policy wrt the more recent articles where he had a COI. I believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies. I do have additional concerns about his conduct in defending these articles. I am recusing myself from an actual ''support'' or ''oppose'' !vote as it occurred to me that I myself had written an article on a family member some time ago... I have reported myself to COIN. '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I also "believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies" - and commits properly to adhere to them in future. I just don't see any evidence of that time being taken, genuine understanding or any commitment. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''Comment/reply''': As the initial subject of this report, I will also recuse myself from supporting or opposing. But I would note {{u|Catfish Jim and the soapdish}} that the editing of articles about his family members is not just "about ten years ago", but has continued on as recently as the last few months. See and for some fairly blatant examples. Thanks ] (]) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Hmm, yes, looking at those examples (along with the others I've seen), I think the main problem is that Tomwsulcer's writing has been relentlessly hagiographic in style. It might not be a particularly bad human fault to want to pour gushing praise on others, but obviously completely inappropriate here. ] (]) 11:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:That is true... it does significantly erode the case for giving him the benefit of doubt. '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - This seems to be more a case of a user whose writing style isn't a good fit for Misplaced Pages, not someone who was intentionally violating COIN to promote a third party. Per their talk page, the user has already quit, and I don't see any benefit to a ban here. We've managed to drive them off from the Wiki already, no need to twist the knife. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''' -- mind if I weigh in on this? I'm committed to exiting Misplaced Pages but my heart has gone out to all of you fine people, that I feel horrible that I've been wasting everybody's time on me and my stupid problems, so I'd like to briefly explain myself. My mistake has been, clearly, that I have not heeded the COI guidelines as rigorously as I should have. I admit it. My flawed thinking has gone along like this: that what's really important in Misplaced Pages are the three pillars: ], ], ]. This is what I grew up on, and I really thought, honestly, that if contributions meet these three tests, they're okay. I ''should have'' been more forthcoming in my contributions. See, I was writing under my real name, I just didn't think about it after a while, and when I got called on it in the COI noticeboard, I didn't treat it seriously because I thought it was just users wanting to fingerwag me, and I wanted to keep contributing. But it's one of my many problems: I have ADHD (TWO shrinks in my town diagnosed me) so my mind is all over the place, I'm interested in ''everything'', and one way I've learned to moderate my ADHD is by writing (I can cover it up that way -- I've edited my own writing here with several passes, how it's done...). So I'm actually a semi-competent writer with a few self-published books to my name. PLUS maybe I picked this up from my father, an advertising man, but I have this marketing sensibility of wanting to promote everything and everyone I see. I agree -- that's not the best writing sensibility for Misplaced Pages. I'm also tremendously interested in all sorts of ideas so I've contributed heavily to articles like ] because I listen to these Teaching Company courses (free from the local library) and want to write about this stuff! I also want to get ''everybody'' into Misplaced Pages if I can (again, not the best mindset, I agree) cause if you're talking to me at a coffee shop, or I read about you in a newspaper, within 5 minutes I can tell if you're wiki-bio ready, and I can write a wikibio in an hour. I can really whip them out. Most stuff, frankly, about people is positive, and I just write what the references say, and it usually comes out sounding positive or sometimes maybe like puffery. Again, one more of my problems. I was frustrated when I was being hounded after the COI revelations so I did write the ] article -- again, no pay involved, I used to live near his family in Bronxville years back. So, long story short, my means are flawed, but my goals (I think) were good. I do love this project, I love information, I think Misplaced Pages is a great project and I urge you all to keep making it great! And the best way for me, at this point, is to bow out. So, again, apologies, please ban me for life (yes my wife would like that!) cause the Internet is a wide new world and there are plenty of other places for me to write. Peace.--] (]) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Thanks for the response, Tom. It's good that you seem to (belatedly) accept that[REDACTED] is not your blog. There are, indeed, better venues for that. It's a bit of a shame though, in my opinion, that you still seem to regard having that pointed out to you as "hounding". I hope that, if you ever do consider a return here, your understanding has evolved beyond that perplexing and inaccurate mindset. I also, sincerely, hope that you continue to get satisfaction and happiness from your writing on other platforms. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:{{re|Tomwsulcer}} <s>Much respect for that, Tom. I was always convinced you had the best motives here, and that it was your procedural approach that was problematic. In the light of what you say, I am further convinced that we do not need to apply any sanctions here. If you should wish to resume editing in the future, I would be open to offering what guidance I can. (I might not be active here when you do, as I continue to wind down my Misplaced Pages activity, but I intend to always keep my Misplaced Pages email contact active and I would invite you to use it). ] (]) 16:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)</s> (Withdrawn after seeing the lastest SPI, and amending my recommendation above. ] (]) 21:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC))
*::I said above that I'd rescind my support for a ban if I saw a response that convinces me Tom truly understands and will not continue to be a problem. I still, honestly, haven't quite seen that yet, but he says he will not continue to edit, and I'm honour-bound to accept that at face value, so I guess sanctions are no longer urgent right now. I'd probably prefer a definitive result from the thread, because "I retire for a while, so you don't need to sanction me" is getting pretty damn old, tired and sadly predictable as a response, but meh... <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Agree here that good faith has been exhausted in this scenario. Tom's entire editing history is littered with COI editing and utter refusal to understand copyright. Given the issues with the line between outing and determining COI topic bans simply aren't sufficient. We can't figure out every person Tom has a connection to, but we certainly can see from his track record it's not going to be encyclopedic. Frankly, Tom's post above makes me even more strident in my belief that we need a ban here. As long as people are willing to say "oh well they're quitting, there's no need for sanctions", there is no limit to how often editors will claim "ANI flu" to avoid discussions of their bad behavior, or trot out a medical diagnosis as explanation for why we shouldn't deal with their behavior. And frankly good faith should be exhausted as soon as those canards come out. We have plenty of editors with ADHD or autism who ''can'' edit constructively without problems. If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I don't really disagree with any of that, either.
*:I was trying to be "nice" above, but at some point we do need to consider whether that "niceness" is just being exploited or manipulated.
*:And yes - "If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it?" <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Please don't give the user a free pass merely because they say they're quitting! It's not that I doubt their sincerity, but surely we all know that editing Misplaced Pages is addictive (duh), and that ''most'' people who sincerely say they quit are likely to come back when the withdrawal bites. ] &#124; ] 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC). PS: And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against {{u|Melcous}} (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟 ] &#124; ] 09:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC).
*:{{tq|"And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against ] (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟"}}
*:Amen. Boing , above. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' per my previous remarks. I found TWS's statement above moving and self-analytical, but unfortunately still ignoring the consequences of their actions rather than the causes of them. ] 13:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC){{pb}} Changing to strong support per the SPI; while that seems to have attracted lukewarm attention, their blatant admission of socking is clear, despite the details our august colleagues are discussing. ] 21:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I have not seen good behavior from Tom, and I doubt the efficiency of not banning him simply because he quit; in the first COI thread, he simply left for a few months and then came back instead of addressing his mistakes; and I feel as if he may do a similar thing if he is not banned here and now. Also, dropping a link to this discussion regarding possible ] by Tom: ]. ] &#124; ] 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - First of all, let's get out of the way that I agree that someone quitting shouldn't let them off the hook. The issue is, to jump straight to a site ban I expect to see pervasive, egregious problems for which no lesser intervention could suffice, and I don't think the case for that position has been sufficiently made. Few things try people's patience like poorly managed COIs, indeed, but looking through a few people's opinions here, you'd think tendentious and COI editing is all that Tom does... but a perusal through a few of his doesn't seem to support that picture. That doesn't mean there aren't big problems here, so don't take this oppose as opposing any action at all -- it's just a response to the only proposal on the table, which is the most severe possible action. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to where Tomwsulcer adds a name to a long list of people that went to the same school as Dana Delany. ] was created by Tomwsulcer. ] was created by Tomwsulcer. ] was created by Tomwsulcer. ] was created by Tomwsulcer. ] was created by Tomwsulcer. ] was created by Tomwsulcer. The dispute that I mentioned above was in regard to Tomwsulcer's edits to Raynard S. Kington, who is now the haed of that school, ]. It makes me wonder if perhaps Tomwsulcer is more interested in Phillips Academy than he is in Dana Delany. ] (]) 22:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*::Do you think they are all former classmates of his? '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 12:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Catfish Jim and the soapdish}} They are. {{redacted}} ] &#124; ] 15:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|Wizzito}} I see your evidence was redacted... presumably because of doxing concerns... Tom states that they were on his linked in page. '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 17:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*::{{tq|I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to}} - This is sort of my point. Why did you then stop? And why did you not look at the others? The question isn't "has Tom made bad edits" because clearly he has -- a lot of them. The question is whether a site ban is necessary, and evidence of bad edits isn't justification for a site ban. We site ban people when there's no realistic way they can contribute productively. I'm saying there is evidence Tom can contribute productively, as evidenced by the other contributions. But what I'm saying doesn't really matter, I suppose, since Tom is quitting and seems to be... well maybe not making things ''worse'', but certainly not making things better with what he's been writing here. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{re|Rhododendrites}} You seemed to be saying that Tomwsulcer wasn't just editing pages where he had some personal interest that he wanted to advance. That edit showed me what his personal connection was. Since you asked, I went a little further. Tomwsulcer added from Dana Delany, made in an interview with someone named Jonathan Meath. Sure enough, ] has a page created by Tomwsulcer and Meath attended Phillips Academy. My opinion is that quotes don't belong in biographies unless they are historically significant. I definitely don't think quotes should be used just to namedrop one of your friends. Is Tomwsulcer a good editor outside of the conficts of interest? Read his concluding statement at ]. ] (]) 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' due to COI editing, misrepresenting said COI editing (re the Molly Secours article), and socking. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There are just too many things wrong here. ] said it best, but with the (admitted) socking and the inability to understand the problems, I end up here. ] 15:49, 12 March 2022 (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)
*'''Comment / Post mortem''' I’ve been doing a little soul-searching and just wanted to understand what happened. I see myself as a good guy, ethical, a worthy contributor, doing an excellent job here with many tough subjects such as ], ], ], ], ] and such. And I want to do the right thing. This is a big deal for me, in my life, wanting to do the right thing, so I stepped back a bit, reread your comments above, and wanted to add one more comment since I think there’s much heat here and little light. What’s clear to me is that everybody else here is doing what they think is right. If we think about the idea of ], then, what’s the problem?--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (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 understand how most others here see me. That I was masqueraded as a ‘real’ contributor so that I could get my friends in here, possibly editing for money (I don’t do that). When I was ‘caught’ after 10+ years with a notice on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard, I refused to address the issues, and 'hid’ for a few months, hoping the hubhub would die down, that users would forget, and go back to my sleazy ways of COI writing. When I got hounded by well-meaning users, who (in good faith) thought I was COI editing, I evaded, didn’t address issues, didn’t come clean about all my nefarious history of COI editing. Then, when I complained about the hounding, and the socking got discovered, well proof positive – this guy’s no good, doesn’t belong here. I can see clearly how most of you think of me and my behavior here. Got it.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (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.
::Now, I ''realize'' that most of you won’t trust anything I write here, perhaps you’re suspecting that I’m writing this as a backhanded way to get back into Misplaced Pages (not the case, trust me – I’m quitting) but I’d still like to state my take on all of this. I’m an old hand here. Been here 13+ years. When I first started out, sure enough I got into wiki-battling, jousting over what went in, and frankly, and I think this is true for most of us here, initially, is that we ''enjoy the wikibattling''. Admit it; it’s kind of fun. We get to play like wiki-lawyers. I was pretty good at the game. So are you guys: hey, don’t believe me, then reread this thread! What happened to me, during my tenure here, is that I learned, slowly, that I really didn’t like how I felt afterwards. So as time passed, I really came to try to avoid it, and to focus on creating good content. So, backtrack to last November, when I got ‘caught’ for COI editing, I figured it was just more wiki-battlers wanting to joust, and I didn’t want any more of that. I had Covid twice in the past two years, the first time quite seriously, and I don’t want to waste my time any more on this stuff. When I tried writing again, I was hounded left and right, with every thing I did being flagged as a COI violation, and the only way I thought I could avoid the wiki-battling was to try to write using another handle. And that from my point of view, having to reveal all of my associations would be more wiki-battling, more waste of time.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (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 know; nobody reading this will trust me, but I’m telling you truthfully, how I’ve been thinking.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (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)
::So, again, returning to my earlier question, what’s the problem? I think I’m good and right. Others think they’re right. Yet we have this conflict. What gives?--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (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.)
::So I did a little thought experiment. Suppose I have a friend who’s a hacker, who has a way to get into Wikimedia’s databases, and can ‘reveal’ who you people are. Doesn’t it strike you as a little ''odd'' that most of you, writing under aliases, are fingerwagging me, who writes using his ''real name''? But suppose I could lift the veil on you people, find out who you really are, then google your real names and your past editing history, and what do you think we’d find? I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings. We’d find that some of you edit for money. But then we’d look a little deeper at the particular edits you did, you horrendous COI editors you, and I bet we’d find that almost all of them were imminently reasonable, maybe sometimes with a little puffery, but verifiable with good ] references, that if I went over all of your collective supposed COI contributions, I wouldn’t delete anything because they were all good.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
* 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)
::Think about it this way. I’ve been ‘exposed’ as a COI editor for months now, with numerous smart and sharp contributors going over everything I’ve ever edited here, but none of the articles I’ve written have been deleted. Why not? Because every wiki-bio article I’ve written deserves to belong here. They all meet the tests of ]. I can’t put my friends in here if my friends aren’t notable. But they’re notable. Many times I’ve ''made'' friends with people online after putting them in Misplaced Pages, usually after I’ve tried to beg them for a photo. (But navigating Wikimedia Commons is as some of you know a Kafka-esque pursuit).--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (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. ] (]/]) 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 ===
::So what I’m thinking at this point is that we ought to take a more hard-headed look at the COI guideline. Suppose there’s a public relations person who wants to write about their company, here in Misplaced Pages. Suppose there’s one of you people who want to write about your friends or your church or whatever. Suppose, further, you '''followed the rules''' – you were ], you ], your edits were ]. Would your edits be so bad? They’re checkable. You couldn’t just write anything. You had to use ] not ]. You couldn’t engage in ]. See. from my viewpoint, these are constructive additions to this magnificent encyclopedia.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
::Consider, further, that it is ''really tough'' for us contributors here to try to attribute motives of contributors, and then to try to judge whether those motives are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. As I said, most of us here use alias handles so nobody knows who anybody else is. So we can’t even begin to try to track down the motives of anonymous contributors. Consider that I’ve been here 13+ years, using my real name, and it took ''that long'' to supposedly catch me and my supposed infractions. Even back in 2011, I , but it took more than a decade to have my COI discovered. The way Misplaced Pages is set up is not conducive to hunting down COI editors. It’s too tough. So it’s kind of like we’re operating on the honor system, as if we’re assuming that others (editing anonymously) will declare their supposed connections.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::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) ===
::What the current COI guideline can do, however, is turn us all against each other, to fingerwag, to encourage wiki-battling. In my case, the COI guideline has been abused to turn good contributors like Melcous into hounders. Melcous isn’t at fault here; it’s the COI guideline that is at fault.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{cot|Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.}}
{{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.
::So, what to do? My recommendation is keep the COI guideline but phrase it more like an encouragement, a request, but use it with greater discretion, and realize that the other guidelines like notability and reliable sources and verifiability and secondary sources and no original research, etc, take precedence. That’s how I see what’s happened here, is that the enforce-the-COI thing got out of hand, that it turned good contributors like Melcous against good contributors such as myself, and in the wiki-battling, painted me as some form of quasi wiki-criminal, even though for years I’ve been a top creator of good content. That’s what I’m saying: rethink the COI guideline. Keep the COI editing flags since they can help readers judge whether the article is fair or not.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:'''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)
::That’s my two cents. Trust me, I’m gone. Bye folks. With my reputation in tatters here, I'm not the one to go crusading for such a change. Remember to please ''ban me''. Peace.--] (]) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Your ''two cents''? ] &#124; ] 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC).
:::{{re|Tomwsulcer}} All you had to do was simply declare that you had connections with the people you wrote about. That's all. The purpose is simply to get others to check what you write, and adjust it for any excessive praise (for example). It's not hounding, it's cooperative editing. And that's all Meclous was doing. No, your articles have not been deleted. But they have been edited for content, with excessive puffery removed. And that is what COI policy is there for. You accept it, or you leave - and it's a shame you chose to refuse to accept it and leave. ] (]) 21:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Tomwsulcer}} I would have liked to see you accept responsibility for your actions, help clean up some of the things you have written, and carry on editing with a new understanding of what other users expect from you. What I see is you saying that you are a great person and a great editor and if you broke the rules then the rules must be wrong. ] (]) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings}} - Yikes. This is perhaps the most cynical and/or pessimistic estimate of COI in the active Misplaced Pages community that I've come across. I can only gauge my estimate by my interactions with people here and Wikipedians whose real identities I know, but my take (and hope) is that it's much lower. But you do make a good point about use of real names. It does, I'm sure, feel quite unfair and perhaps even creepy to have a bunch of pseudonymous people on the internet pointing fingers at your family connections while keeping their own connections secret. It presents an asymmetric field that removes the possibility of exploring ''tu quoque''s. Sadly, that people do sometimes use Misplaced Pages to write about their families at length, and fail to hide it, makes it harder for those of us who want to discourage this sort of personal digging. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:::*Such cynicism may perhaps be prompted by encountering {{On AFD|Guide to Literary Agents}}, a directory for authors to contact publishers edited by Chuck Sambuchino, with the Misplaced Pages article written by {{user|Csambuchino}}. There's a parallel to {{user|Neguev}} writing about {{On AFD|Reedsy}}. I touched on the account names thing further down in this discussion. I've gone through some of Tomwsulcer's AFD contributions, and xe does seem to grasp the basic ideas, and would actually find a widespread agreement on some of the things that xe says. Where we differ, I suspect, is that it is my experience that the people with conflicts of interest tend in the main to be single purpose accounts or to edit in little walled gardens, or only edit the "bands, biographies, and businesses" subset of Misplaced Pages. I'm unconvinced that that such disagreement is something to ban for. I think that people are, however, reacting to the failure to say something simple like "I'm just a satisfied customer. They didn't pay me. If anything, I paid them!". ] (]) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It would bring him much virtual peace. ] (]) 00:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. If anyone is still in doubt, check out ] (and thanks to the individual who alerted me to it). It's a blatant piece of promotional puffery, with a lot of it (including the lead) sounding like it was written by the company's marketing department. Oh, and yes, you can guess who wrote it. I think Tomwsulcer's work needs some serious review and rewriting - I wonder how much more of this promotional garbage there is out there? (<s>I'll start a little pruning on this one myself</s> ...on further examination, I think it's beyond salvage in its current state and I've gone for AFD). ] (]) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
**Interestingly, at ], at the second (correction: third) creation of the article in 2017, there is an edit summary from {{user|Tomwsulcer}} claiming no association with ]. Off-wiki evidence leads me to suspect that "I am merely a satisfied customer." would have been better. Moreover, I personally do not fault writing with a non-pseudonymous account when the subject is close to onesself. Although for many years I have offered the advice at ] and ] that one has to be ''very careful indeed'' about it and use only independent sources, which press releases and puffery most definitely are not. I think that failure to distinguish which secondary sources are ''good'' secondary sources is one cause of the problem here. ] (]) 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
***There is circumstantial evidence that Tomwsulcer had collaboration from the company to write that article, at the time a whole load of its blatantly promotional content was added. I can't be confident that it's any more than Tom asking them to upload photos for him to use, and Tom's "gushing praise" style could account for the promotional content. But in combination with a professional connection with the company (though which Tom received professional services), this all makes it clear that a COI should have been declared so it could be reviewed by other editors under COI policy. There's no way all that puffery would have been acceptable by any review process (eg AFC) had such a review happened. ] (]) 12:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
***Oh, and yes, if Tom denied any connection with Reedsy at ] (which I can't access), then the off-wiki evidence suggests that was not accurate. But we've already seen in the above discussion how ready he is to deny connections that he really does have. ] (]) 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
****The edit summary in full is "re-float; company is clearly notable; I'm not associated with Reedsy; added categories; copyedit; rm fluff; kept good refs". This was on 2017-11-19, 3 days after ] moved ] out of the main article namespace, {{user|Neguev}} having come back on 2017-11-14 to create ] a second time.<p>] (]) 18:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*****Ha, and have you seen who ] is? He's Emmanuel Nataf, "founder at reedsy.com and street photographer" (from the link on his user page, so I'm not outing him). ] (]) 18:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
******Yes, I had. See a parallel a few bullet points above. ] (]) 19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


==== Uninvolved editors ====
== Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA ] sock DE and spam 7 ==
* '''Oppose all'''. I would have voted '''Option B''', but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the ], and as a ] myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to {{u|DragonofBatley}}. You're welcome! ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Proposal''': Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.] (]) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
],this LTA use this IP range after 1 August in 2020 (only 1.36.236.68 is not),please block it,thanks!--'''<font size="3.5">]]]</font>''' 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
*Also,please protect ], start at 2 August in last year,spam and DE.--'''<font size="3.5">]]]</font>''' 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


==== Involved editors ====
::], you didn't ping me this time! I'm trying to get a streak here. ] 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{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)
*'''Prefer''' the less stringent '''option A''' because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on ], all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. ''']''' (]) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with ] and ]. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. ] (]) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring ], I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - ] (]) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::@] at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. ] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
==== Discussion ====
* I think I would be happier if:
# there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
# I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "{{tq|This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}.}}" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB '''prove''' to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - ] (]) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? ''']''' (]) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See ]. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). ]] 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{ping|KJP1|Cremastra}} Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">{{snd}}Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
* I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, '''before''' posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.
:Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
:I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community ''consensus'' to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
:I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --] (]) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – ] and ] also apply here. --] (]) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|Tryptofish}} I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the ]. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance).{{snd}}] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --] (]) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::@] He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. ]] 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. ] (]) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
**That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. ] (]) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@], I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. ] (]) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too ] for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. ] (]) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. ] (]) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but ]. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.
:::::The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with ''structure'' while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe ''structure'' to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --] (]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I ] KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. ] (]/]) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.
:::::::I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?
:::::::They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.
:::::::Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.
:::::::TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. ] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@] {{tqq| list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed}} there's ]. ] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@] Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @] - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! ] (]) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. ] (]) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{U|Blue-Sonnet}} - That would be really helpful, particularly your perspective on how best to help ] with the reviewing task. As we've not been able to bottom-out the restriction wording yet, I'm going to take Voorts' advice and get DragonofBatley going on some reviewing. My intended approach was to suggest that they take, say fifteen articles to start: five churches, five places , five railway stations. (these cover about 95% of all of the articles created). Mark these on the table as "DoB Review". Then, have a careful re-read of the editing advice that Cremastra/PamD and others have put on his Talkpage. Then, thinking about what we are reviewing for:
::::::::::::* Sources - do they really VERIFY the content, or are they just a mention of the name, sometimes not the right name?
::::::::::::* Sources - do they add up to "Significant coverage in Reliable Sources", so that the article really is NOTABLE? Here, '''significant''' is very important, three quick mentions of a place don't add up to significant coverage.
::::::::::::* Sources - if they don't, what other options are there? Here, it would be really good for DragonofBatley to look at the suggested actions other editors have made in the table; REVISE (with new sources)/MERGE/RE-DIRECT/send to AfD.
::::::::::::* Sources - if they do, are any other revisions/clean-ups required?
:::::::::::make what they think are suitable changes, record them on the Table, and pick up another. And take them SLOWLY! When 15 are done, flag it on the Table Talkpage and we can have a look. I'll post this on the article Talkpage and we can see if it works for DragonofBatley. I'm fine, of course, with amendments /alternatives to this if he, you or others think there's a better way forward. ] (]) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::That sounds good. In the interest of keeping this discussion moving towards a consensus, I'd like to check the current temperature of opinion. It sounds to me like there has been a favorable reaction to having a resolution that emphasizes structure. But before I propose anything, do any editors still prefer to have minimal restrictions? --] (]) 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
Oh, this LTA abuse two IP range,


] 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.
#], only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2016, .
#], only it edit in this IP range after 29 May in last year,.


Diffs:
Please ] block it,thanks!--'''<font size="3.5">]]]</font>''' 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
*],this LTA use 112.118.32.0/23 again!--'''<font size="3.5">]]]</font>''' 11:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
* 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.
::::::::::::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 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) <small>moved down from the middle of the above comment (]). &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 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)
::::Citation bot has not been {{tqq|approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking}}. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at {{slink|User:Citation bot|Bot approval}}. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.{{pb}}But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.{{pb}}If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. ] (]) 17:03, 19 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)
:::::The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).{{pb}}However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.{{pb}}Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.{{pb}}Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, ] (]) 16:48, 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)


: The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
], only it edit in this IP range after 5 July in 2019,.--'''<font size="3.5">]]]</font>''' 08:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is there anything left here to discuss? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says {{code|"datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. ] (]) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::1. Not a news article.
*:::::2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless.
*:::::3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. ] (]) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You're claiming it's disruptive without explaining why you think that. You're going to need to actually explain your reasoning if you want people to agree with you. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:Thanks ], got it. ] 02:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) == ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
*{{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.
== Hamkar 99 ==


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.
User {{userlinks|Hamkar 99}} removed the text with sources from the article ] and continues the ]. I have information (on the identity of the Behsud and Besud tribes) verified by ], including ]. Calls for consensus on ] were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he described the sources I added as follows: "So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted". To a request for a more reasonable argument, I received the following answer: "This is my own conclusion." I suggested that he stop deleting sources and, in order to comply with the ] I invited him to add his sources. In response, he a source in Persian (which I can't verify yet) and removed the sources and information I added earlier. Now he reverted () my edit with the following description: incorrect and pan-Mongolism edits. I think such accusations are ] and a violation of the rules prescribed in ], ]. Also the accusation of pan-Mongolism is a direct violation of ] (I think such accusations are unacceptable on Misplaced Pages). I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Misplaced Pages. Thanks.--] (]) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
: Let me add here that previously both users asked me to do something with their opponent, and I really think what is happening in the article is not ok. It can certainly benefit from an administrator looking at it.--] (]) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*Blocked one week for continuing the edit war. ] - ] 23:33, 11 March 2022 (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.
== Disruptive editing by ] ==
*{{userlinks|Dicklyon}}
*]


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.
Reporting ] for continued disruptive editing on hundreds and hundreds of articles. It took me hours yesterday to undo only some of his 100s of edits, of which . A discussion because another editor disagreed with his changing 100s to 1000s of articles. While discussing, of which I see no consensus and where he pinged another editor with the same pet peeve he has, . After 2+ days of discussion! He has done this multiple times at Tennis Project articles where some of us have to revert all his edits. He never does just one. While a couple of us vehemently disagree with his view, we had discussed changing the header to something different that could work for all. Instead, he goes and claim consensus and 100s more have been changed.


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)
This has to stop. I'm not sure Tennis Project has ever been busier in fixing these trivial items than we are the past month. We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. If this was the first time he has done this it might be handled differently but this is blatant in our faces disruptive editing and he should absolutely be required to revert all his edits until the Tennis project figures out how best to handle its chart columns and rows. This is urgent because he is changing so many articles even now. ] (]) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (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. ] (]) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:The tennis articles are indeed very busy in fixing trivial over-capitalization issues, since there are so many of them and since they're pretty easy to fix with JWB. But you've chosen to pick on one particular fix for reasons that are hard to understand and have been roundly rejected at the discussion you linked at WikiProject Tennis; more days won't change that. ] (]) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (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 ], 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)
::Where do you get 2+ days of roundly rejected by the same crew that always follows you around. One of which you invited KNOWING how they feel. It is not consensus, you were warned as such, it's under discussion, and yet still you change 1000 articles. The Project will very likely change this to something else like W–L if a heavy consensus ever forms to that odd pairing you want. You are blatantly misusing JWB for the umpteenth time and it must stop. I would be inclined to take that gadget away from you it's gotten so bad. That is why we are here; your disregard for the situation, and the discussion. And this has happened before very recently. You should know better. ] (]) 06:44, 9 March 2022 (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)
:::I did ping the editor who had done similar changes there before; his edits were not objected to. As for blatantly misusing JWB, I don't know what you're referring to; are there accusations some place? I generally use it only for uncontroversial simple pattern fixes, such as downcasing per ]. ] (]) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (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)
::::They have been controversial and you know they have been controversial. This is an item that will affect every single tennis bio in existence. Countless thousands or 10s of thousands. If there is something you don't like about a chart, the TennisProject may change things to make it more palatable. A handful of your buddies should not be able to change every tennis bio.... that requires a massive consensus. And 2+ days of talk and changing a thousand articles after being told not to is DISRUPTIVE EDITING. You should know that in your 16 years of editing as it's been told to you recently. It was also told to you in discussion that it's not clear with W–L|(16–7) and Win–Loss|(16–7) that MOSCAPS applies. You said yourself that W–L is functional, not W–l. But this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss your blatant disruptive editing in the midst of 2+ day discussion that has no consensus, where you went and changed 1000 articles to your way of thinking that now MUST be changed back. That is wrong and will always be wrong and you need to be reprimanded for doing it yet again. ] (]) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (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)
:::::"Countless thousands or tens of thousands"? No. There are 1397 tennis biographies with the table row header "Win–loss". This is the only recent place where you and Sportsfan have objected to using sentence case and prefer to use title case; but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what ] says. ] (]) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (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)


=== PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future ===
{{od}}
I was about to raise the issue of Dicklyon's recent edits with JWB here at ANI as well. I am the editor that Fyunck(click) refers to above who "disagreed with changing 100s to 1000s of articles". ] (]) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


:I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
The main issue with their editing is that they are already making hundreds of edits to implement what they voted for in a discussion that is still active. It may very well be the case that their personal preference wins the discussion, but whether or not it does is not the issue here. The issue is that they are basically ]-closing their own discussion after three days. Before they made their recent batch of edits, I suggested an alternate option that only Dicklyon is against, but most others haven't commented on yet because it wasn't part of the original post that started the discussion. To me, it's pretty well-accepted at Misplaced Pages that if there's an active discussion going on (and especially if you have already been reverted), you don't make changes to implement your option until after the discussion is over. That goes against ] and ]. ] (]) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::
:1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.
::
:2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.
::
:3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?
::
:Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.
::2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.
::3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. ]] 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, I accept your apology. ]] 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Response and apology from PEPSI697 ===
Another thing to note is that Dicklyon has been blocked for ]-ing before on issues related to ] (see ). ] (]) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:So my last 6 years or so of good work since being welcomed back is to be ignored in favor of this long memory of a bad time? Thanks. ] (]) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:: Not being blocked in the last 6 years doesn't mean you've been doing good work all that time. It could just mean you've gotten better at avoiding a block. Plus, you were blocked in 2019 as well, so not completely better at it. ] (]) 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
A third thing to note is that Dicklyon did the exact same thing last month in which they rushed through a change affecting dozens of articles after leaving that discussion open for not even two days (see ). I warned them against doing that earlier in this new discussion , yet they still ignored it. ] (]) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:How is that the exact same thing? Did anyone object? How does your "warning" of March 6 relate to my edits of Feb. 21? Did anyone react negatively to any of those changes? Not that I've seen. What are going on about? ] (]) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


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)
The TennisProject had the same thing happen several months ago with a different user {{u|Ruling party}} for prematurely changing the names of dozens of Davis Cup articles while a discussion was still going on and they were blocked for it (see ). ] (]) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::Those things from Ruling party are nothing to do with me, and completely unknown to me. I'm sorry if you're having a bad time due to the actions of others, but don't put that on me. ] (]) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:And that's the big thing. This is becoming habitual with Dicklyon. He has admitted having a "Pet Peeve" about capitalization with no room for any other views or flexibility. I can guarantee this will not be the last time he does this unless something is done, and I'm really getting tired of doing 100s of reverts ALL because of him. Editor Wolbo is now doing a that he shouldn't have to do. ] (]) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::I ] Dicklyon to make those edits based on what I thought was consensus (all the newest tennis season article use a certain format, so I thought it reasonable to apply the same format to older season articles). ] has ] for the older format and reverted the changes. As those edits by Dicklyon were based on my apparent misapprehension of the consensus, they should not factor into anybody here's conclusions about Dicklyon. ] (]) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Wolbo}} No, the changes I did at Letcord's request at ] are not the ones at issue here (not clear why Sportsfan is throwing in this distractor, or why Fy is using it as somehow supporting his issue that he came here about; there was no contention or disruption, but a little reverting since I took your request as representing something the project wanted, which wasn't right). I took those to discussion at ], and undid some of them, but we didn't undo the case fixes; nobody objected to lowercase "draw". ] (]) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*Misplaced Pages will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Misplaced Pages ''will'' suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. Unless there is a discussion showing a consensus for the recent changes, I '''support an indefinite topic ban''' for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have. If necessary, I'll later dig up a few of the previous battles about this issue. ] (]) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Fy already linked the discussion showing consensus for "Win–loss", and ] has broad consensus. Of my last 20,000 or so case-fixing edits of the last month or so, there's this one little item that he and Sportsfan are the only ones objectig to. They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion ] and ] was clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. ] (]) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::That is a blatant lie. Consensus was not reached in 2+ days. I'm not sure how you figure these things. To change every single tennis bio takes a lot more than a couple of friends agreeing with you. They are always the same couple plus you called one over in canvassing. With discussions like these an alternative may find a place. ] (]) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::*This is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of Misplaced Pages having a long consensus about how to capitalize. Article titles, section headings and table headings are in sentence case. A local consensus does not outweigh a Misplaced Pages wide guideline. Yes, while this is being discussed, such edits should stop, but there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus.&nbsp;]&#124;] 16:33, 9 March 2022 (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.
This also happened at , Dicklyon attempted to ram through a page move to "New York City subway", of user's responses to the page move, the relister of "]" and then immediately opened (also failed) when the outcome wasn't in his favor. As such I also support an '''Indef topic ban'''. '''<span style="background:#0000FF;padding:3px;">]</span><span style="background:#FFFFFF;padding:2px;border:solid 1px blue">]</span>''' 16:19, 9 March 2022 (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)
:As for subtly changing the section heading, I was reverting to the original heading that I created in , which someone else had subtly changed without my consent. ] (]) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (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)
:I used the proper RM and MR processes there. How is this "ramming through"? ] (]) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (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)
::The closing notes of the review specify that there should be "no rush to renew the discussion". '''<span style="background:#0000FF;padding:3px;">]</span><span style="background:#FFFFFF;padding:2px;border:solid 1px blue">]</span>''' 16:34, 9 March 2022 (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)
:::Indeed. It was a 10-year interval before the previous re-opening, and I don't expect to bring it up again in this decade. ] (]) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
{{od|5}} Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- ] (]) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I was referring to the interval between this re-opening and the review. '''<span style="background:#0000FF;padding:3px;">]</span><span style="background:#FFFFFF;padding:2px;border:solid 1px blue">]</span>''' 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::The move review followed shortly after the RM discussion close. That's standard. ] (]) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
* I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion, but the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. I oppose any warnings/sanctions against Dicklyon based on the evidence so far, which shows a bigger problem of a small group of editors trying to invalidate project-wide consensus at a WikiProject talk page. Bigger, but still not that big, as this issue is barely noticeable by readers. ] (] | ]) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:: If you think a strong consensus has been reached in that discussion, then close it and leave an explanation of the outcome. Why is it still open then? ] (]) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Advice received. I do get impatient when people like Fyunck and Sportsfan throw delays into routine work. It took November through February to fix the overcapitalization in "Men's Singles" and such over their objections, but we got it done, including bot approval for thousands of moves. Sometimes a lot of process is needed, but not in the current case. ] (]) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*::And we get angry when you skirt the system and implement a thousand changes without consensus that we have to fix. And since this happens over and over your "advice received" rings hollow. You need to change your tactics from now on or this will happen again and again. Have you changed back all your edits... I sure don't see it yet! ] (]) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::There's no need to get angry. ] serves us well. I do a lot of bold changes, and about 99% of them never provoke a comment. For the ones that do, we discuss. Did I jump too soon when I thought the consensus of ] was clearly re-affirmed for "Win–Loss"? Perhaps so. Otherwise, my "tactics" are mostly effective and uncontroversial. I've changed the case of about 200,000 letters in recent months, and you're picking on a tiny slice of that, while others are (including 6 in the last few days) and supporting me in moving WP toward better consistency with our ]. ] (]) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::As for changing back all my edits, of course not. If you mean particularly the downcasing of "Loss" for row header "Win–loss", I've prepared a JWB settings, preparsed, and counted the 1397 tennis bios that that would apply to. I don't want to undo them without consensus, as I'll probably end up re-fixing them again if I do. It's about an hour in each direction. Let's settle it back at the project discussion if there's more to decide, not here. ] (]) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::Therin lies your problem and one reason we are here today. You are putting the cart before the horse. It's do it my way, then hold it hostage until we agree. No thanks. Change them all back because for sure it won't stay that way. As another tennis editor has stated, we will change them all to W–L before we go to Win–loss in the row header. Change your disruptive edits back so the project can decide. It could likely be that no consensus will be reached and nothing will change. ] (]) 20:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::::This "tennis is so special" argument gets tiresome. No other area would cap them as "Win–Loss". See for example titles: ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::::It not a question of tennis being special. What gets tiresome is you using this silly response over and over and over and over. W–l and Win–loss in the table header would be ridiculous no matter where it is located. But again, that's not why we are here. We are here because of your constant over-and-over again disruptive editing. That must STOP. You change hundreds and thousands of articles with no consensus at your own whim and then refuse, as above, to change them back when challenged. That is not the Misplaced Pages way. That is not working and playing well with others. Your fixation on the most minute supposed rules is a danger to the cohesiveness of working on Misplaced Pages articles. Again it has to stop. Revert yourself so the Tennis project can look at things. There are at least three editors right now trying to revert all your damages. You may do it in the blink of an eye but it takes us hours and hours. ] (]) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::::::I agree that "W–l" would be a ridiculous header, but nobody has suggested such a thing. I didn't touch any of the headers "W–L". But sentence case headers are normal, not ridiculous. We are not here for any "constant over-and-over again disruptive editing"; we're here because you won't accept the consensus and MOS:CAPS advice to make this header sentence case. If there's something else that brought you here to complain about that, you haven't clarified what. I've done over 20,000 edits in tennis articles fixing case errors, and while you delayed me a few months with discussions on a few of them such as "Men's Singles", the consensus there was clear, and I got no pushback while or after doing all those. In a later round of case cleanups, you decided to react to this one table header. Why? ] (]) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::::::Once again, that is not why we are here. We are here because of your disruptive conduct, and fabricating consensus over 10,000 articles that are managed as best as possible by WikiProject Tennis and others. Win–Loss in a row is not clear and is a minor blip, yet it was being discussed and 2+ days later you puffed up your feathers and changed 100s or articles... which are still not reverted by your disruptive editing by the way. Before making all those changes you should have waited a week or so until an easily seen consensus (or not) appeared. Had we seen some huge Win–loss, tennis project would likely have said to change them all to W–L instead, as we do at the top of the table. That would be the time to do those changes and not before. You work with people and you don't ram things down their throats with 1000 disruptive edits. Your style seems to be with a baseball bat and a shredder as opposed to discussion and compromise. That has grown tiresome and you have been called to the mat on it here.<br>
*::::::::At the very least we see that others have the same issue with your disruptive editing style and if it happens again you could be topic banned or blocked. I'd rather you change your ways than have that happen. I'd rather you not sit there with a stopwatch to tick off the days of a discussion. I'd rather you say at the end of a discussion "do we all feel like this has run its course?"; "Do we have any alternate suggestions that could work to get even more editors onboard?"; "Do we allow some more time for those who could be on vacation or could be involved in humanitarian aid?". Those are things that play well with editors. That means you are trying to find the best solution for everyone involved instead of bulldozing the conversation. But right now, your continued actions have me not trusting any of your motives or any of your edits. I feel I have to scrutinize all your tennis edits for fear they have overstepped. I don't want to feel that way, but I do. ] (]) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::::::::I do hope you and others will scrutinize my edits and let me know if I get something wrong. But this thing about "Win–loss" being disruptive is nuts. If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". ] (]) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::::::::That is a lie. I said I would bring it up a level if you continued without consensus, of which there was none! That is why we are here. Your stated "Per Peeve" on all capitalization issues at Misplaced Pages, where they become the pinnacle of all issues, where everything else gets pushed aside to the point where you become judge, jury, and prosecution in 2.5 days is a problem. There are so many ways this could have gone where we could have told you to change things to W–L as a compromise. But that was sidestepped by the fervor of that "Pet Peeve." You need to learn to work with people much better than you have been. ] (]) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I can't tell what you are saying is a lie. If you're going to make accusations like that, you need to be clear and say what the evidence is. I suggest you retract it. ] (]) 00:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


:Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. <b>]</b> ] | ] 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the comment by ] above. I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. (See also my vote comment ].) Deapitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. As for Dicklyon specifically, I first recall encountering him in ] about 15 years ago. I was unimpressed by his hyper-rules-oriented approach then, and I see little evidence that it has changed. ] (]) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you {{tq|absolutely agree with}} isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Wow, way to carry a grudge, NYB! ] (]) 19:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
For goodness sake, over-lowercasing indeed. Can you imagine what the abbreviation would soon look like? "W-l", rather the "W-L". What's next to come? Infobox titles or maybe Article titles? ] (]) 20:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


== Non-neutral paid editor ==
:Initialism type abbreviations use caps. There has been no controversy about "W–L", which is used many times in all the articles in question. ] (]) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:And article titles already use ]. Note that I have not touched that disambig page; it's longstanding consensus to follow our MOS. ] (]) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


@] 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)
I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case, but absent in all this is any principled justification for ''not'' changing the tennis articles to be internally consistent and like the other articles. ] isn't something we generally encourage, and for all that it doesn't seem to be the case that there is a local consensus within the tennis project in favor of the status quo. I'm also not sure what to make of the "W-l" strawman, given that no one appears to have suggested such a thing (and it would be ridiculous). These discussions are difficult enough without wasting people's time attacking things that no one has proposed doing. ] ] 22:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
{{od}}
:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
Per Johnuniq, I support a topic ban for Dicklyon (from ] and ]). ] (]) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:* 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)
Here's at least a few of the times above where Dicklyon has claimed consensus where there isn't:
*:@] - 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)
* ''but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what ] says. ] (]) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)'' (still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)
*::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)
* ''the consensus from the RM discussion ] and ] waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. ] (]) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)'' (not true. what Dicklyon wanted was not selected in the RfC. what I wanted was selected.)
*:::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)
* ''If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". ] (]) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)'' (same as above. still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)
*::::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)
My guess is this is only going to continue. ] (]) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (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 ===
Also, with Dicklyon's statement that:''They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion ] ] (]) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)'', this isn't true. I got what I wanted (e.g. "Men's singles"). Dicklyon did not ("men's singles"). That's why I think Dicklyon is ] the Tennis Project, and that's why I think a topic ban is warranted. ] (]) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (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.
:That RM discussion closed in support of exactly the moves I proposed. You did not participate; at ] you said the capitalized Men's Singles needed to be kept as a proper name: ''The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply.'' Why are you trying to rewrite history about that? ] (]) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
: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 voted (I voted for B or E. The winning option was Option B). Dicklyon's vote is clearly for A or D. ] (]) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
: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.
:::{{ping|Sportsfan77777}} You seem rather mixed up here. We were speaking about the RM discussion that I started on Jan. 8, and you're now referring back to the RFC that preceded it. I took the result of that RFC into account when proposed the moves in the RM. Rather than pushing my own preference, I proposed moves that looked like they would be more likely to get consensus, based on the rather mixed results in that RFC. So I chose one of the options that you had previously supported. In the RM, you didn't comment. I think I did the right thing here. Was there an issue? ] (]) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::::: Yes, that's exactly what I said. You changed your vote. I didn't. ] (]) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC) :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)
:Since the Tennis Project makes no edits, it cannot be hounded. Your bad-faith assumptions and wild accusations are pretty tiresome. ] (]) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (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)
:: What do you mean no edits? A project can absolutely be hounded. Dicklyon never edited tennis articles before. They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop. If that's not hounding, then what is? ] (]) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (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)
:::A good faith-assuming version of that history is that he stumbled upon a capitalization issue in one set of tennis articles, fixed it, and then progressively found many more in other types of tennis articles (bios, draws, seasons) over time. I do agree though that he jumped the gun a bit in interpreting the consensus in the "Win–loss" discussion, and should revert himself if consensus ends up being for "Win–Loss". ] (]) 11:29, 10 March 2022 (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)
::::I have said that I am prepared to put them back to "Win–Loss" quickly if there's a consensus to do so; but that won't happen, since it's against ], which says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. ] (]) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
:::::I think there's a non-zero chance that it will happen. I also think from the limited I've seen of your editing that you've not displayed "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as is required to post about someone here, so this public pillorying of you is undeserved. ] (]) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
:::"''They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop.''". "Nonstop" must mean something different than I think it does, then. Because his recent editing history is virtually all to NFL team articles and some MLB players. Does that mean he is hounding WP:SPORTS? You continue to be disingenuous in your lathered-up attempt to circumvent WP processes. ] (]) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*If one reads the discussion here and at ], one thing is immediately apparent to me - the language being used. It is very strongly ] and ]y. The "apparent" trigger for this "incident" would appear to be DL concluding and acting upon a consensus from the discussion at ]. If it is simply their volume of edits, there is no incident. As {{U|SchreiberBike}} observes: {{tq|... there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus.}} {{U|Firefangledfeathers}} observes: {{tq|... the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me.}} While Firefangledfeathers observe (and DL acknowledges), more time ''might'' have been given, one should consider the pattern of engagement at WikiProject Tennis. A discussion at ] petered out in the same timeframe as the current discussion (ie just under 3 days) and, by my count, received 4 comments from card-carrying members of the tennis project. DL has regularly engaged with the project and in notified discussions elsewhere. If one reads the discussion fully, arguments about "W/l" are a ] and the most recent comments at WikiProject Tennis are (IMHO) at best, ''novel'' but are clearly contrary to guidance and clutching at straws. Not even the ] were consistent in capitalising "win-loss" in tables ().
*::::i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
*::::the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
*::::AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. ] (]) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
*:::::Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? ===
:I would remark on these particular comments at WikiProject Tennis: {{tq|even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization}} and {{tq|We would change it to W–L if it came to that.}} These statements (to me) signal ''petulance'', ] <u>(])</u> and unacceptable intractability. This "threat" has been acted upon with edit to ]. If {{U|Fyunck(click)}} would ague that: {{tq|Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do}}, who is now going to act to address this? If this "incident" is primarily that DL hasn't gained a consensus for their edits or hasn't waited sufficiently for the discussion to evolve, I am at a loss as to how this action (amending the guideline) isn't a case of ]. This is an ill-considered change that doesn't serve our readers since it provides for no guidance (legend) that would now explain this abbreviation where previously it might have been deduced. If we weren't sailing close to ] before, I think it should now be considered. ] (]) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit[REDACTED] 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)
*I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. The discussion linked was not an RfC and did not need to be formally closed to find consensus for a change. I'd advise Dicklyon to be less hasty but leaving this ANI thread open is not likely to improve things; nor has Dicklyon done anything worthy of any sanction. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (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)
*I concur with Elli. I'll add that what is going on here is that a handful of people (mostly along ] lines) don't like ] but know they are not likely to get any traction on changing its central message – that WP doesn't capitalize things that are not overwhelmingly capitalized in modern source material, and not just specialized source material but general-audience source material like news, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Instead they attempt to resist implementation of MOS:CAPS (and the derived ]) at "their" articles (]), and to use ] techniques to hassle editors like Dicklyon who just are applying the guidelines correctly. What's especially irritating is that the most frequent "noise" of this sort is coming out of sports and games wikiprojects, {{em|after}} a clear RfC implemented ] specifically to curtail overcapitalization in those topic areas. What we have here is a ] failure wherein a handful of wikiprojects refuse to recognize that a site-wide guideline overrules their topic-specific personal preferences. This ANI should close without action other than perhaps ] sanctions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:31, 10 March 2022 (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)
**The attitude that the capitalization conventions in the MOS are a top-level priority, which must be aggressively enforced despite the strong preferences of the editors who actually create and maintain the articles in their fields of expertise, has over the years caused a great deal of damage. ] (]) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (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 ].
** {{u|SMcCandlish}}, the Tennis Project is not against ]. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. In most of these situations, even if Dicklyon is correct that it is a ] violation, there are usually multiple options about what to change it to. Dicklyon does not just get to decide which one to go with. ] (]) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::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.
**:If I've done something where the Tennis Project comes to a consensus that there's a better solution, let me know and I'll be glad to help get it done (assuming it doesn't go against guidelines). ] (]) 04:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::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)
*:There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" so that is of concern as well. Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) and was told as much before this ANI was brought to bear. But I'll tell you one thing... that boomerang statement tells me all I need to know and is probably a good reason why you failed in your attempt to gain administration level. That is ridiculous bias. ] (]) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (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)
*::I don't think that it is accurate to say that: {{tq|There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states.}} I am not seeing any such comment at the tennis project discussion. The objections being made appear to be based on personal preference without any reference to how ] may or may not apply to this case. Also, MOS:CAPS is quite explicit by virtue of a directly comparable analogy at ]. Also, I don't think that it is quite accurate to say: {{tq|There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" ...}}. If you are referring to , then the close states: {{tq|No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase.}} It was "no consensus". Also, while both cases use a dash, the grammatical contexts are quite different, as is how the dash is used (spaced or unspaced). When stated: {{tq|Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) ...}}. This clearly fails to acknowledge that P&G are a representation of broad community consensus. Making a statement: {{tq|That is a lie.}} is an allegation. There is no significant difference between saying that and saying "you are lying" or "you are a lier". If one is going to make such assertions, one really needs to ensure that their own statements are scrupulously accurate or risk ]. To the last of the post, we are getting into ] territory. ] (]) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
* Pretty much agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above. It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Misplaced Pages, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're ] to be ]. I'm not surprised to see this ANI report against Dicklyon, and I think an indefinite topic ban (from the MOS, or at least from MOS:CAPS) for the user is warranted. Also, Dicklyon's ] (]) as linked above is also very concerning, since those sockpuppets' edits involved MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc., and here we are in 2022 with complaints of disruptive editing by Dicklyon regarding those same types of issues. ] (]) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
**Here we are in 2022, and you're digging up sockpuppet concerns from 2015? ] 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
***I didn't dig it up; it was mentioned earlier in this thread by Sportsfan77777 who said: {{tq|Dicklyon has been blocked for ]-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS}}. ] (]) 22:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*It's not a big secret that I oppose the lower-casing push on Misplaced Pages, that's been happening for roughly 2 years now. I believe that article titles & infobox titles are among the few areas left, that haven't been lower-cased (or at least not entirely). At some point, there's bound to be a push back, whether it's against one editor or a group of editors. ] (]) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:It's not a lowercasing push so much as a push for congruence with the guidance of ]. Article titles and infobox titles are uniformly done in sentence case. Where there are exceptions, they should be fixed. But yes, it's no big secret that you oppose such fixing. And I've been doing it for over 15 years, so you're a relative newcomer to his area. Do you like to push your own style? Why? ] (]) 04:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*The charges against Dicklyon are spurious. As others have said above, this is just another example of small groups of editors in particular topic areas attempting to assert control over what they perceive as their ] territory. I am sure their efforts are made in ], but Misplaced Pages is a generalist encyclopaedia, not a specialist tennis chronicle, and avoids ] wherever possible, no matter the field being described. Luckily for us, ] explains that our policies and guidelines cannot be overruled by small consensuses of editors in particular topic areas. If these editors have a problem with the guidelines on capitalisation, they should make an effort to change them, or seek some sort of broader community consensus for an exception in the particular case of tennis articles. There are no grounds, however, for 'shooting the messenger' of the MoS that is Dicklyon. Overall community support for ] has been demonstrated time after time. Mr Lyon may sometimes be 'too quick to pull the trigger' when making these kinds of changes, but that doesn't negate the value of his tireless work to ensure our encyclopaedia meets a professional standard of stylisation. A topic ban would be disastrous for Misplaced Pages. ] — ] 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*I rarely opine on this board and am myself no expert as to misadventure, but I was active in the 2015? thread when Dicklyon got blocked for sockpuppetry and since this enforcement tool has been mentioned, I am going to narrate boldly for perspective. I don't even remember the specific disagreement (likely similar to this one--MOS vs. local consensus), but I remember ] tried lots of ways to get folks to recognize Dicklyon's socking (a very new and unexpected development at the time). My recollection is that RGloucester got himself blocked saying something inexplicable to get folks to listen. I actually remember screaming "noooo!" at the screen, reading RGloucester's words. Later we found out RGloucester was right the whole time. Dicklyon took his punishment, tried very hard to not edit, and re-applied for editing sooner than he probably should have. But IMHO if any editor on Misplaced Pages has a reason to hold a grudge against Dicklyon, it's RGloucester. If HE says such current charges are spurious, I'm inclined to listen closely to him THIS time. ] (]) 08:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*:RGloucester and I reconciled just fine (see his comments just above). My socking was designed to tweak him into accusing me, and it worked great. I'm very sorry I took that route, and I've done my time. ] (]) 04:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*I think the suggestion of a topic ban was made much too hastily. Despite the enthusiastic attempts by a few editors to personally discredit Dicklyon, he is at most guilty of overzealous enforcement of the Manual of Style. It would not be reasonable to impose sanctions here and this matter should have been handled with more AGF and less venom. While I don't think we are in boomerang territory just yet, cheap shots like are not okay. ] (]) 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I probably should not have written that to be sure. It stems from something in the past where he was reprimanded by administration for hammering on me at Misplaced Pages. I apologize for bringing it up but his statement about me and my motives is perceived as biased and unfair and I just boiled over in reading it. I'm still angry in reading his post again right now. ] (]) 04:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*This should just be closed with no action needed. Wikiprojects exist to serve wikipedia, not the other way around. An editor enforcing the MOS (even in banal ways like this) is not an issue. Hell it should be appreciated by topic editors as something they don't have to do. If it is demoralising editors as suggested above, it probably says more about those editors than anything else. ]&nbsp;] 09:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


=== Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile ===
===How absurd can this get?===
Now Sportsfan7777 is saying that I'm at it again by fixing the over-capitalization of "Strike Rate". See . What crazy theory is behind such picking on routine case fixing? See ] for discussion. ] (]) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:] refers to two different statistics in the sport of cricket. What does that have to do with tennis? ] (]) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::I don't know it means in cricket or even in tennis, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be capped. See . Or . ] (]) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:Really, ]? You've exhausted all higher-priority tasks for fixing incorrect visible text, and now you're going after tool-tips that are only visible when you hover over them? How do you set your priorities? There's a ton of stuff worse than this lingering around the project that somehow you've missed. ] (]) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages editing is my hobby; I don't aim to be as productive or efficient as possible, just work on fixing things I find wrong. Thank you for your concern. But if there are things wrong that you'd like me to help with, let me know; I usually aim to please (which got me into a bit of pickle with Letcord's suggestion as you can see above). ] (]) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::I think if editors were generally called upon to explain what they worked on and why the project would disintegrate. ] ] 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Can I interest ] in working on clearing ]? This is something only I have ever worked on for any extended length of time, AFAIK. My time is too oversubscribed to keep it under control. There are over 400 links to {{no redirect|Buzzfeed}}, that should link to ]. Hundreds of links to {{no redirect|Bachelor of arts}} that should link to ]. Same for {{no redirect|Bachelor of science}} and {{no redirect|Bachelor of Science}}. A lot more where those came from, with more added most every day by drive-by biography writers. I don't follow how fixing some tool-tip in a table is higher priority than those. – ] (]) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::::It's fine if you don't follow. No one needs to explain their priorities to you, let alone operate according to ''your'' priorities. ] (]) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::I tried to remove the need for fixing {{no redirect|Bachelor of science}} but {{U|Chris the speller}} ]. So I think it's reasonable to ask for help. He's not the only editor who keeps piling work on me. ] (]) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::Actually, yes, I'd be happy to work on more tasks that others think are more important (in addition to what I do organically). Tell me more on my talk page about the nature of the problem and how you go about fixing it. Do you use JWB to generate list of articles linking to wrongly-capitalized redirects to start, and then just do the appropriate replaces? ] (]) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Chris the speller}} so if you two disagree on whether "Bachelor of Science" needs caps or not, did either of you open a discussion on that? ] (]) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, yes, you both had a word in there, I see now. But nobody cited a relevant section of ], nor linked it at ], so nothing is resolved except that the two of you have different priorities, which is not novel. If we agree it needs fixing, I can whip it out in a few minutes with JWB. So agree first. ] (]) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::wbm1058, it is categorically impossible for me to pile work on you. Please see ] and ]. You are painting me as stubborn for marking a redirect as a miscapitalization 10 months ago. Dictionaries show "Bachelor of Science" as capitalized, as it is a specific, formal distinction. A "bachelor of science" is an unmarried man who plays with test tubes. Your fight is not with me, but with a bunch of lexicographers. ]&nbsp;] 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::OK, we three agreed, and I went through and fixed all those links to capped Bachelor of Science. In the process, I accidentally didn't restrict to main space, and ended up editing this conversation as I clicked through too fast. Sorry about that. I also noticed that I need to go and fix Bachelor of Science in Xxx to lowercase xxx. Will work on that. ] (]) 06:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{od}}
This is complete BS. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. I said either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. ] (]) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:True, your edit summary did say ''either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely'' as you restored title-case Strike Rate. Sorry if I didn't characterize your revert exactly correctly. ] (]) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


<s>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. </s> Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:So, with clear reason to remove the tooltip template, and make the dispute redundant, {{U|Sportsfan77777}} chose to revert the edit - an action that keeps the dispute alive. This strikes me as being rather ], since the actions required are rather trivial. ] (]) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


:'''<s>Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions</s>, 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.
The point is not about ] at all. If you want to make a wide-scale change, you need to start a discussion first. This applies to everyone, but Dicklyon wants some kind of special privilege. ] (]) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
: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)
:Indeed, Why do we still, after all these years since {{no redirect|National Football League draft}} (] was SIX years ago!) need to keep driving (at ]) home that MOS:CAPS does not decide whether a thing is a Thing that has a proper name or just a generic thing that doesn't? ] (]) 13:00, 12 March 2022 (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)
{{od}}
*:{{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)
I don't understand why Dicklyon is allowed to keep carrying out these edits (changing "Strike Rate" to "Strike rate"). When I reverted one of his changes to the tooltip and told him what I wanted (either "strike rate" or the tooltip removed altogether), he stopped making the edits and opened the discussion pointed out above (]). Now, I was going to reply to the tooltip discussion again, but I see Dicklyon has gone back to making the edits he wants on the tooltips (for example, ) even though it has only been two days since I last commented. There are so many active discussions on tennis related to Dicklyon that I don't have time to reply to all of them every single day. At this point, I don't see the point of replying to the tooltip discussion because Dicklyon has already made the changes. ] (]) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (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 from ESG and its affiliates''' 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).
Firefangledfeathers commented above "I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion" and Dicklyon replied "Advice received", but he is still doing it. There is no end to this. ] (]) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
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 ] , 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.
===Some background===
The great majority of my edits in the tennis space (about 20,000 edits) can be understood from the discussion at ]. The only comments I got there were about things that I failed to fix, so I kept at collecting over-capitalization patterns and fixing them. All was fine until Sportsfan reverted a change of "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss" in a table header. So we discussed that at ], and appeared to have strong support (only Sportsfan and Fyunck objecting) for following MOS:CAPS instead of Sportsfan's variant style, so I went back to it. This is not at all the picture that he and Fyunck paint above which somehow has me harassing him or the project. ] (]) 18:20, 10 March 2022 (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)
Some other changes that ended up being partly reverted can be understood from ] and ]. Please read and you'll see I'm trying my best to be cooperative with the project. ] (]) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
:I'm sorry but I can't see how implementing a mass-change against consensus is in anyway being "cooperative with the project." &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::Can you point out when/where you think I did that? Maybe a diff or two, so I can see what you're accusing me of? As you told some above, ''That is a '''very''' serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once.'' ] (]) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|HandThatFeeds}} again, if you have evidence that I have been "implementing a mass-change against consensus", please link it here. Otherwise please retract this accusation, which is a wild extrapolation of what brought us here. ] (]) 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I disagree that it is a "wild extrapolation" and will not be withdrawing it. Please do not ping me again. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::::I'd ask if you will be substantiating your accusation for the benefit of those of us who are trying to wrap their heads about this thread, but I doubt if you'll see my comment. If someone doesn't want to be pinged back to a discussion, they really shouldn't lob an accusation before leaving. ] (]) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Obviously he will not be substantiating his accusation, since I never did any "implementing a mass-change against consensus"; he just read too much into the complaint and extrapolated to that. ] (]) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
: Just the read the discussion above, Lepricavark. Dicklyon "implemented a mass-change against consensus" four times last week alone, including once after this ANI started. All but one of those changes are still being discussed, while the other one was reverted back to what it was before Dicklyon made the changes. ] (]) 05:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::I have read the massive thread, thank you very much. What I saw was a tantrum by the OP, who acted as if a series of minor stylistic changes was somehow the end of life as we know it. For example: {{tq|We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts.}} Fyunck unironically stated that reverting stylistic edits had become a higher priority than dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Do I agree that Dicklyon carried things a little bit too far and acted a little bit too eagerly? Yes. Did it justify the character assassination perpetrated above? Absolutely not. Also, I see no evidence of Dicklyon violating an existing consensus. He may have been too eager to claim that a consensus existed, but given that he was merely trying to bring articles into compliance with the MOS as he understood it, I'm not sure it was reasonable to expect him to seek consensus in the first place. I really don't think it matters if the tables say 'Win-loss', 'Win-Loss', or 'W-L'. But what I do care about is the manner in which this dispute has been needlessly personalized against one individual. Cooler heads need to prevail. ] (]) 06:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
:::I have no horses in this race whatsoever; if anything, I have viewed Dicklyon as a rather charitable editor who was kind to me when I first started editing.
ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.
:::That said, I think Dicklyon is wrong here, and I am wondering why he has forgotten that Misplaced Pages is this funky mundane miracle wherein everyone gets together to collate knowledge into an encyclopedia that most get to edit and everyone gets to use. Yes, there are rules in place to govern how we interact with each other, but the overriding unspoken truth is that without that collaborative effort to work together, it all falls apart.
:::And Dicklyon, your actions have repeatedly worked to sidestep that collaboration. Never mind why you have done it in the past, or why you continue to do it now. What matters is this single inexcusable truth: your actions - in not genuinely seeking to work with other contributors - have proven to be corrosive to the Project. I totally understand why you do it, but its an arrogance, Dick, and one that distances you from others in Misplaced Pages; it turns you into a Cabal of One. And that effing sucks, man, because you have a lot to offer the community, if you'd but listen to and work with others.
:::You need to cowboy up and change how you approach Misplaced Pages editing. You may not like some of the changes that new generations of editors have brought about, but you either adapt to those rules or walk away. The third option is you get kicked out, and that would be a shit legacy for you. YOU NEED TO RE-THINK THIS. - ] (]) 06:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Setting aside the fact that your very long comment is just a series of generalizations that fails to address any of the specifics of this dispute, you are at least the second person in this megathread to bring up the importance of collaborative work without acknowledging the very real problem of the OP putting their own personal preferences ahead of the MOS. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? ] (]) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Lepricavark}} You said he may have been "too eager to claim that a consensus existed to change tennis charts" and that he had no reason to realize there may be debate on the issue. Even if true, it looks like his eagerness never abates , in spite of this discussion going on. Many of those edits are exactly what is being discussed currently elsewhere and why it was brought here. ] (]) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::That's not ideal. Whether or not these edits should be controversial, they clearly are. It would be prudent for him to refrain from making mass edits related to the 'Win-Loss' display while this discussion is ongoing. This is not a matter that is so urgent that it cannot wait for discussion. ] (]) 06:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== Jussie Smollett ==


:Hello ], we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of ]. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (] (which is an alliance), nor the concept ] itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
:FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: ] and ], then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
:FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
:If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for ] apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from ]? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
:Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
:Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks ''in this thread'' but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." ] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't ] or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are ], which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.{{pb}}Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact , which states that {{tq|he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.}} This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". ] (] · ]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to ], or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. ] (]) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::did report to ] ] (]) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they ''do'' make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we ''do'' allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. ''edits'' that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] put this back into our court. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. ] (]) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile ===
<small>I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) </small>


:::<small> The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.</small>True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its <s>direct</s> affiliates, broadly construed. This ''obviously'' include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from ''citing'' the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Sentencing is scheduled to occur today in the ] case. The BLP article concerning Smollett was recently the target of multiple editors who insisted he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence, and were prepared to edit war over it (the article already provides appropriate weight in the lead section and in the body with regard to Smollett's legal issues and status). The article currently is protected to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access. Even so, asking for additional eyes on ], as today's news, whatever it may be, can be expected to revive this disruptive activity. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?
::::
::::By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on ] (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).
::::] is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)
::::I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those ''grey areas'' while editing the ] article as mentioned above by ]. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the ] article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "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").
::::Oh and should the ] where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). ] (]) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::For the topic ban, you can add it to ]. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about ]. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being {{tq|a pioneer in opposing SRM research}} is sourced... to ETC Group itself). ] (] · ]) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a ]. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.
::::::For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. ] (]) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at ] violated ] quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
:::::::Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I ''tried to'' make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.
::::::::Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."
::::::::I believe my edits for the ] article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. ] (]) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page ''on the topic of ESG and its affiliates''. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a ''symptom'' of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like at SRM and at ] (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:You've had a grand total of 1 talk page discussion about the appropriateness of including "felon" in the lede sentence. Sounds like you're prejudging what the consensus is and I don't see why anyone should be blocked if they "insist he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence". Just because someone is disagreeing with you doesn't make them disruptive. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Chess}} If you'd like to participate in the talk page discussion at ] and contribute to the development of a consensus, you are welcome to do so. Those of us who have participated in that discussion and who have experience with editing BLP articles on Misplaced Pages have thus far rejected the introduction of the term "convicted felon" in the initial sentence of the lead ''until and unless there is a consensus to do so''. Repeatedly making a disputed change to a BLP after being informed that there is no consensus for that change is disruptive. No one has ever been, nor will anyone be, blocked just for disagreeing with me. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Opening an ANI thread because of a pure content dispute that's been resolved is somewhat frowned upon and pre-emptively opening an ANI thread for a content dispute that hasn't really had a firm consensus yet is also questionable. I assumed by "recently" you meant the people discussing on the talk page wanting to get this added in, since at the time you posted this the last time people sought to add this information was over 2 months ago while an IP editor made a reverted edit request a few weeks ago. Since that wasn't the case, I don't really get the point of this ANI thread. ANI is usually when you want someone blocked for doing a bad thing recently. It's not a general noticeboard for "this article may have misguided editors doing things they need a warning for in the near future!" That being said, my opinion on this dispute is you should start the RfC yourself and settle the matter. Sure maybe the editors proposing the change should be doing it but they're all new editors who don't know how to start an RfC. If you really want to curb disruption, starting an RfC yourself means inexperienced editors will have the opportunity to easily comment and give their two cents rather than being told to spend an hour or two learning how to make an RFC and getting frustrated then deciding to just editwar. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


:IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Chess}} This was not an AN/I complaint, nor a report of or a request for help resolving a dispute. This was a request to administrators for additional eyes on an article due to a history of disruptive editing there, anticipated to resume because of RL news. If you're not interested in offering yours to the task, no one's twisting your arm. I really don't need to justify my posting here to you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 03:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:<small>(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before)</small>. To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} Agree with Chess; this discussion should not have been opened here. ] (]) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::Hi Femke, I've modified the ] article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.
::::::Then a constructive and helpful response would be to point out where it should have been opened, not to write an essay telling me why I'm wrong to mention it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the ] article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the ] article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page ]. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) ] (]) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't believe there is a right place. The closest might be ], but it would be better to wait and see if an issue develops and if it does notify the community about it with a post here. ] (]) 03:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a ] or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like ]. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.
:::::::An RfC on the talk page is a good way to get people to opine on a dispute. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a ] to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That is more so for when the dispute is continuing not a prediction of a dispute coming back. ] (]) 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for ]" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be '''extended to future employers''' too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per Femke. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' and will withdraw my proposal above. ] (]) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed''' <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:They are confirmed (below). <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 ]s long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. ] (]) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. ] (] · ]) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support as proposer''' and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' While I do believe that EMS has made some positive contributions, they have also made some egregious errors. If this was not a situation of PE or COI, then at most we'd probably consider a voluntary ban, but given the PE/COI concerns, once you've lost the trust of the community, it is going to be extremely difficult to overcome that cloud. When doing PE/COI work one must be extremely carefully not to make any questionable or promotional edits, they must be 100% defendable, and what we've seen here is that there are multiple instances where that is absolutely not the case. It is a difficult choice because there is a mountain on good work, lots of history and many examples of following procedures and presuming good faith. As I mentioned early on, this might be a case of sealioning, where we've got a civil contributor who is still pushing for a specific POV. These are always difficult. But in looking back at specific edits, and even by EMS own admission, that mistakes were made, and the threshold for when we loose trust and faith in a PE has been exceeded. And while I'd hate to mess with someones livelihood and income, it does not appear that is EMS' primary income, and thus I think that it is appropriate that this ban also extend to any other PE works now and in the future. ]&thinsp;] 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'll be honest that without the COI element I'd not be seeking any sort of sanction bigger than a trout. However I take the COI part very seriously and that's the locus of my concerns. ] (]) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Agreed! ]&thinsp;] 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


===Voluntary restrictions===
== Disruptive ] editing ==
{{Ping|EMsmile}} Just clarifying
*When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
*Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?


Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Userlinks|Cornerstonepicker}}


:Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
In the past, I've gone to ANI about ]'s past canvassing and consistent stonewalling in this previous ANI report ] which may be useful context in this situation. However, another incident of disruptive editing has happened..
:* To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
:* The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the ] article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per ] it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? ] (]) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance '''research community'''." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. ] (]) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:::That takes care of everything I asked about. I did a lot of work with perhaps wiki's most prominent PE (CorporateM) prominent because they had high visibility discussions all over the place on the whole idea and how to do it best/right. Maybe it's emblematic of the challenges that they are mostly gone now. Plus several others. Answering your question I know that there are lots of ways, (some are really backed up partly because most people don't know how to do a requested edit well) but what worked was just putting the requested edit on the article's talk page. Feel free to ping me there if you wish. The common mistake with requested edits to to not make it explicit. Say exactly what would be taken out and exactly what would be put in. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Background:'''


== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
In December, ] on ] to re-add the honorific nickname "Queen of Rap" to her lead section, because new sources had come out that supported it. Before that, Cornerstonepicker started ] to remove the title from Nicki Minaj. When I started my RfC to readd it per the overwhelming sources, predictably, Cornerstonepicker strongly opposed it. However, the RfC had enough support votes from other editors to pass. Then, shortly after that, he started mass-adding the "Queen of Rap" title to the lead of other female rappers, such as ] and ] ''directly after'' Nicki Minaj's RfC passed.
*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}


{{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.
If you look at his editing history on those articles, he hadn't edited said artictles '''for months''' until '''after''' the Nicki Minaj RfC passed, and he edited them to add "Queen of Rap" to their leads, once again '''after''' "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead. Is this not clear disruptive ] behavior, as he had already previously opposed adding it to Minaj's lead?


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)
{{hat|reason=Evidence of ] disruptive editing|2=More evidence of this can be found in edit histories, these are just specific diffs that highlight the pattern.}}
:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* Missy Elliot: {{diff||prev|1054592498|Last edit (10 November 2021)}} | {{diff||prev|1068732122|Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (30 January 2022)}}
::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)
* Lil' Kim: {{diff||prev|1040381495|Last edit (24 August 2021)}} | {{diff||prev|1071919095|Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (15 February 2022)}}, {{small|(He had also added weak unreliable sources for Lil' Kim being called the "Queen of Rap." on February 2, {{diff||prev|1069448710|such as a non-notable Jamaican newspaper}})}}
: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)
* Queen Latifah: {{diff||prev|1044404364|Last edit (15 September 2021)}} | {{diff||prev|1068919291|Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (30 January 2022)}}
: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)
* Lauryn Hill: <small>Last edit = nonexistent, because he had never even edited her article before "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead </small>| {{diff||prev|1072322811|Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (17 February 2022)}}
::Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at ], not here. ] (]) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* You can see the '''full edit histories''' here and how he has been adding "Queen of Rap" to these articles '''a lot.''' ( | | | )
:::{{re|Sundayclose}} Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, {{tq|This complaint is not about the content directly}}. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. ] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. ] (]) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


*There have been numerous edits to the ] article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
Note that Cornerstonepicker only added this content after the RfC had passed, afaik not attempting it before on such a '''wide scale.''' He had also reverted anyone that questioned this sudden mass adding of "Queen of Rap" to a lot of articles. I'm not even talking about myself here, '''a different uninvolved editor''' had ] to question why he was edit warring to add this content in almost every female rapper's lead. The {{diff|User talk:Cornerstonepicker|1076298011|1076091424|editor had commented}} how Cornerstonepicker adding it to every female rapper's lead is oversaturation, and asked why he was particularly pushing for the "Queen of Rap" title ''specifically'' on those leads, not any other title. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
*Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of '''information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family'''.
*A note - I've given Shanghai a final warning for edit warring, and while it hasn't been broken yet, there's still an awful lot of reverting going on. Additionally, in my observations, I've noticed that virtually every single edit I've spot-checked has been about adding more positive content about Nicki Minaj, or removing negative information about Nicki Minaj. I'm not saying Cornerstone is innocent, but I do believe there's some ] and ] issues here developing with Shanghai. Take that as you will with reviewing this. ] ] 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
*:{{reply to|Sergecross73}} If you look at my edit history, I'm not afraid to add negative information / remove positive information about Minaj when needed. {{diff||prev|1038682015}} {{diff||prev|1037868120}} <small>(I can provide more diffs)</small> I've been very open and transparent about being a fan of Minaj, something that Cornerstonepicker himself {{diff||prev|1036323205|has attacked me for many times.}} This is the same person ] by other editors, with seemingly no accountability so far. Meanwhile, I've gotten countless attacks about my transparency to others... ]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**{{ping|Sundayclose}} Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
::It's true that RogueShanghai has not been neutral with regard to Nicki Minaj, adding far too much positive material, and arguing strenuously for more. There's definitely room for a boomerang with this report. ] (]) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, {{u|74.12.250.57}}, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, {{u|2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803}}, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
:::100% agree with a boomerang - this editor has been here a frankly absurd number of times for the amount of productive edits they have actually made. For those unfamiliar with the history, here's the list of previous ANI and ANEW threads for this editor, in no particular order:
**The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
:::*]
**On 10 January, {{ping|Religião, Política e Futebol}} made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
:::*]
**Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
:::*]
**On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
:::*]
**On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
:::*]
**Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
:::*] (and the section below it)
**On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
:::*]
**Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
:::Given the persistent, long term issues with edit warring, ownership of articles and biased/POV editing I am convinced that a boomerang is needed here. For someone with a total of 1850 article edits the amount of time that has been wasted on this editor is absurd, I cannot see how allowing them to continue editing here would be anything other than a timesink. ] (]) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
::::<small>I can't really ping this IP so I'll just normally reply. I'm also concerned that an IP address with only 150 edits that only started editing a lot '''last month,''' knows so much about disputes that happened '''several months ago.''' Would I be crazy to call sock?</small>
*In regards to '''the mention of Baena's suicide''', this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
::::'''Three''' of those ANI reports were by people who had thrown '''multiple personal attacks at me,''' which you did not mentioned at all here. One of the reporters even openly misgendered me '''in the thread.''' One of those reports is literally '''by me''' about the person who had been throwing me personal attacks, and another of those reports was filed by ''the same person'' who went to Cornerstonepicker's talk page above.
**{{ping|DiaMali}} did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
::::I'll say this about my Misplaced Pages behavior previously in 2021: '''I'm not proud of it at all''' and I wish there were so many things I could've done differently. I had only started editing a lot in 2021- I didn't know a lot of the policies, I didn't know how serious edit warring was, and I'm sorry for being stubborn. In my experience, Misplaced Pages had a '''very''' steep learning curve, and there's still stuff that I don't know or that I'm not sure of. I'm really trying here and I feel like I'm getting stonewalled and gaslit continously, to the point ] ]<sup>]</sup> 22:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
:::::The IP editor who commented above is an incredibly valued long-term contributor to many parts of the project. Please retract your socking accusations. ] (]) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when {{ping|Ibeaa}} removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
::::::{{reply to|DanCherek}} My bad, I was just suspicious. I'm sorry if this person is actually notable around these parts. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**On 7 January, IP {{u|2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196}} adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
:::::If you read the comments from the admins and the uninvolved editors who have been responding to those threads the exact same issues are showing up over and over and over again: 1) you adding promotional and positive material to articles and generally writing from a fan's POV. 2) You displaying ] behaviour over the article and being unable to accept other people's opinions. 3) You edit warring and being disruptive to try and get your way. I'm not proposing a ban for your benefit, it's for the benefit of everyone else. If you cannot edit articles about Nicki Minaj without us having to have monthly ANI threads about "RogueShanghai and Nicki Minaj" then you should be topic banned. ] (]) 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
**The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
::::::I'll address all of these one by one:
**The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
::::::* I've always tried to include reliable notable sources for all of the "promotional" material I add: for example, the "Queen of Rap" title is very well sources, using sources from Billboard, NME, Time Magazine, NBC News. I've already noted below how the previous lead, ''before'' I started editing Nicki Minaj, makes note of some achievements like her debut album being certified triple platinum, that aren't in her current lead at all today because while they are notable achievements, they're not due for her lead.
**{{ping|Sundayclose}} reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
::::::* What other opinions are being talked about here? Provided the discussion is about content and not other editors, I'm always happy to take it to the talk page.
**Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
::::::* I've avoided edit warring (afaik at least 3RR) as much as possible and have opened multiple discussions on the talk page instead of edit warring. And this is with my edits being stonewalled and removed for no reason for months. That's the entire reason I started editing ], as I was sick of the hostile environment on ].
**Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|50.71.82.63}} fixed. Diff:
::::::No one's managed to point out that I've been doing work on other articles such as Perrys, with no one from that article taking such issue with my edits saying they are "promoting positive material" or "trying to get my way." I've discussed plenty of content on that talk page, and even found the current new image. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
**Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information ''five times each'', no edit reasons in sight.
:::{{reply to|Binksternet}} Far too much? All I've been trying to do is to get the article to ], which I've been working on since last February. I have been transparent about being a fan, yes, but I've always tried to balance it out. Since January, I've literally been cutting down on accomplishments in her lead, minimizing it from to ]<sup>]</sup> 22:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
***Zander: (above 1), , , ,
::::The number of paragraphs in the lead section? People aren't worried so much about that. They are worried about the overly promotional tone that you bring. And your three lead paragraphs are beefier than the previous four paragraphs, almost the same size in total characters, so it's not really much of a reduction. As your older example, you ought to have picked as it stood right before you first touched it in November 2020; that version was more succinct, with fewer words in the lead section and also fewer words in the article body. The tone of that version was much more neutral. Back when the bio was listed as a Good Article, it was a decent balance of media observations. Now, it's far too promotional. ] (]) 23:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
***Ibeaa: , , , ,
:::::{{reply to|Binksternet}} If you want to make it about article content "then vs now", let's talk about that.
**I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
:::::''Compare'' the "2014-2017 The Pinkprint" section now vs "when I first touched it". had a bad flow, '''had ten paragraphs,''' and had '''very''' poor sources such as "elitedaily.com". Now look at the section that I had recently put a lot of work into cleaning up a couple of days ago. I cut the entire thing down to five paragraphs, kept the relevant stuff <small>(for example, having the entire critical reception in the article body isn't due and instead should be kept for the actual album article),</small> I replaced bad sources, fixed referencing to properly cite magazines instead of "websites", etc.
**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
:::::This ''also'' applies to the Queen section. Before I "touched it", the Queen section had '''twelve breaks/paragraphs,''' poor sources, and original research. I cleaned up the bad flow and unnecessary sentences, again fixed references, and cleaned it up. Please tell me that the career section before with its messy sentences and bad flow is better than the version that I had fixed. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
**On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
::::::Additionally, there's ''so much'' positive information / achievements in the previous lead '''that isn't even noted''' in the current 2022 lead at all, such as the top five/top ten positions of Starships, Anaconda, Turn Me On, and Chun Li, the triple platinum RIAA status of Pink Friday, the lead sentence calling her an "actress" and a "model", Minaj being cited as one of the most influential female rap artists of all time that Cornerstone has been trying to prevent being readded to Minaj's article. There's actually so much stuff that I purposefully didn't include in Minaj's lead because it wasn't ''due weight'' for the lead. I'd even say that the previous sounds more promotional, because of consistent mentioning of U.S. chart positions for a lot of her singles. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
::::::::These things are not mutually exclusive though. You can be generally be improving the article in some ways, while also skewing things too positively. You can be holding back on adding positive content...and still be adding too much positive content. ] ] 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
**Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
:::::::::{{reply to|Sergecross73}}, but Binksternet's entire point was that the article was "worse" off and had a "more promotional tone" when I'm just showing that it's in an arguably better quality. To quote Binksternet, he literally said "that version was '''more''' succinct with fewer words in the article body" and a "decent balance." A really long 2018 section isn't a decent balance at all... ]<sup>]</sup> 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
**Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is {{tq|accurate and properly sourced}}. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the ] article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
**Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
**Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. ].
***I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
**After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
**Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem {{tq|vital enough}} to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:


*] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to 192.76.8.70 that listed all the reports against RogueShanghai and such behavior on the Nicki Minaj article. The most recent suspicious behavior was:


:This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at ] or a request for page protection at ] would be more suitable than ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Removing over and over again the reason given by SA victim Jennifer Hough for moving her lawsuit against Minaj and her husband to another state, leaving it at "voluntarily dropped", only quoting Minaj and Minaj's lawyer. RogueShanghai cited "original research" twice for deleting it (when it is explicitly written in the reference).
::You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to ''acknowledge'' the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. ] (]) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
**In the same topic, RogueShanghai has kept removing that the accusation is for harassment to "recant her account"
:::Given there's basically nothing on the talk page about any of this, I'd say some full-protection (or pblocks on the editors in question) for a short time may be in order. People ''need'' to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than just trying to shoehorn it into the article, and we may have to force the matter. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*Removing the whole Controversy section from the article.
::::I would have to agree, the most we've got from the users I am concerned about is one who thinks they're above discussion, and one who thinks they're above explanation. The other user involved who was already blocked at least showed some awareness. ] (]) 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*''Minaj said it so it must be true'', examples:
*Removing the "swollen testicles" part on the vaccine controversy section without pointing out why.
*More promotional language .
*Instead of removing one word, removing alot of criticism ; also citing 'vandalism' to remove criticism
This account, RogueShanghai, is here with a single purpose. ] (]) 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
:I'll respond to a lot of this later- you've taken it a lot of my diffs purposefully out of context, many IPs '''had in fact''' vandalized the Boyz article to the point where . I removed the Controversy section following the ''advice'' of an editor who has brought multiple BLPs to Misplaced Pages. Those controversies were not actually controversies, they were And you've still failed to acknowledge your disruptive ] editing.
*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
:That being said, Cornerstonepicker, I'm sick and tired of you misgendering me ], I have made it '''very''' clear on '''multiple''' occasions what pronouns I use yet you've been doing this for weeks. Please explain why you've been misgendering me for months w/o no reason? ]<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
most recently , when I discovered a they placed on . The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did one early warning from the talk page. ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


: The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to ] which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. ] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:: How is anybody suppose to know or remember? please write they/them/pref pronoun in your signature. I randomly remembered you wrote the word misgendering once last year so I made the previous post genderless before you replied. . ] (]) 02:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to ]. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. ] (]) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The onus shouldn't be on me for you to do basic civil behavior by using the proper pronouns that I've made clear '''many times,''' but even so, you literally said yourself that I've confronted you about your misgendering '''last year'''.. and yet you are still doing it """by mistake""" all these months later, It is highly irritating and uncivil every time you misgender me because you've done it multiple times. Why do you continue with such an uncollaborative environment... I'm sick of misgendering being treated like it's literally nothing when it is very insulting. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::: It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please use your signature, nobody is keeping that in their minds, we have lives outside of this discussion. As I said, I barely remembered that (was not many times, that's not true) and changed it before you replied. It's sad that you're accusing me of misgendering you on purpose, and yesterday you acussed another user of misogynist on the Nicki Minaj ]. don't use a serious social issue to redirect the topic. ] (]) 03:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. ] (]) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You seem to be the one changing the topic from your ] disruptive editing pattern on female rappers articles... which you still haven't addressed, I asked you to address it on Minaj's talk page and here as well, but there is still no addressing of the "Queen of Rap" edits on every female rapper after the RfC for it on Minaj's article passed.
::::: Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I didn't even accuse anyone of misogyny on Nicki's talk page, I said that someone's '''implication''' ''came across'' as possibly misogynist. I told you straight up on that talk page "tell me where I called this editor a misogynist." As for the misgendering, if you truly misremembered, then all I ask from you is a genuine apology for using the wrong pronouns. That's it. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::So, the information you added to the article, which had to be revdeled as a clear copyright violation, is something you're now claiming you have no recollection of? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Also, ] applies here, as you only changed the misgendered pronoun "he" to "RogueShanghai".... ]<sup>]</sup> 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Already addressed this: I changed my post to genderless ''before'' you replied. Then, you accused me of misgendering you on purpose. This conversation is offtopic, the other editors involved pointing out stuff do not have to read all of this. ] (]) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::It's still not the pronouns that I'm asking for (you changed the he pronouns to my username) and now you're accusing me of using a "social issue" to redirect the topic when '''I am literally nonbinary''' and part of that social issue. I'm just noticing a pattern of calling me "he" from editors that have directed personal attacks at me before... ]<sup>]</sup> 03:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::As I said, already addressed this; you're still deflecting the topic. ] (]) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you misgender me, I have the full right to call it out... it's extremely offensive. You're insisting it was a "genuine mistake" but at the same time I've never seen you apologize, which is all I'm asking for when anyone misgenders me.
:::::::::::Additionally, you keep saying "I'm deflecting" for calling out offensive misgendering but you haven't even acknowledged the reason that this thread was created in the first place, your ] editing pattern across female rapper articles.... ]<sup>]</sup> 03:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::I feel like you're not reading my replies at all, and going deep in a serious social issue to deflect the ] behavior pointed out here in the Nicki Minaj article. this back and forth is not helping anything here. ] (]) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Misgendering is not a "social issue", it is an insult. You've been ] all of my edits since March 2021, for months now, consistently, I would prefer you actually address that because that's the root of the dispute here, while I'm trying to move on to productively improving other sections of the article that need it, like her Career section, you seem to be still attempting to get "lyricism" and "most influential female rapper" removed from her lead... even though the former has seventeen sources that make note of it...
:::::::::::::and again, I've pointed out that you keep deflecting from explaining your ] mass editing because of the passed "Queen of Rap" RfC on Minaj. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I've noticed you have used the same argument against Ronherry when called out for your behavior. ] (]) 06:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{replyto|Cornerstonepicker}} your explanation might be fine if this was an editor you rarely interact with. But it's clear from your own comments RogueShanghai is an editor you regularly interact with to the extent you remember the alleged problems with their editing behaviour. That being the case, you need to make much more of an effort to remember the editor's preferred pronouns and avoiding misgendering an editor, even temporarily. Notably, if you can remember that an editor finds misgendering particularly offensive you should be able to remember their preference and if you really can't, then make the small effort to check before posting. While avoiding gender pronouns may be fine in some cases, doing it when you know the editor has clearly expressed a preference and you are avoiding using that preference is not acceptable and is the sort of think which has lead to blocks before. If you do that or misgender this particular editor again, I'll fully support a site ban of you. ] (]) 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{reply to|Nil Einne}}, I would never misgender somebody on purpose. I'm fully aware of what that means and how it is used to harm, I've educated myself on the topic. I used the name of the editor here to be specific of who I'm mentioning. I also support that anybody that does that on purpose should be banned. ] (]) 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:A lot of these diffs are straight up <big>'''out of context,'''</big> and don't paint the full picture at all.. here's the necessary context for all of it:
:'''1.''' Actually, I cited "original research" because the article makes it ''clear'' that the whole jurisdictional laws thing <small>(I'm not American)</small> is only '''her lawyers claim,''' which you didn't note at all in your edit. That's one of the reasons I removed it, plus, it's not due weight. Hough's lawyer only statement is "Stay tuned! The lawsuit will be refiled in California!" which is already noted in the section.. and I removed "recant her account" because "recant her account" falls ''under'' alleged intimidation.
:'''2.''' The entire "controversy" section does not have any ''actual'' controversy besides the COVID vaccine tweets. In fact, I didn't actually remove the Controversies header itself at all, I kept it, it was section heading. I removed the feuds from her article, because none of these feuds with other rappers were key to Minaj's notability at all and didn't need their own section. They were moved to the "diss track" song articles by Minaj such as ] and ], as they have more due weight there. In fact, the same editor who brought ] and ] to ]
:'''3a.''' The UK officer's comments are still undue weight because the controversy revolves around someone based in Trinidad, not England. However, in retrospect Fauci ''specifcially'' being the one that Minaj was supposed to call with was a claim that needed better sourcing than Instagram Live. I'll admit fault there.
:'''3b & 3c.''' This directly deals with ''songwriting credits,'' where Minaj revealed that she wrote the entirety of "Chun Li" herself, and that Jeremy Reid was only added to the songwriting credit for his production. This is a comment from the musicians mouth herself about her own music, wouldn't it make sense to use her own words as a source in this situation per ]?
:'''4.''' Because "swollen balls" is seemingly ''quite vulgar'', although if there is proof that notable sources did use these words specifically and consistently, then it would be acceptable.
:'''5.''' How is this even promotional language when it has already been in the article ''way before'' Minaj being noted for her influence by TNYT in 2012, so your framing of this as a "new edit" that "contains promotional language" is confusing..
:'''6.''' As I showed above, the article WAS getting lots of IP vandalism, where because of the amount of vandalism it was getting.. it wasn't a shield for criticism, those edits were actually being made by vandals. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


== Naniwoofg ==
#I did... then only add the quotation marks, instead of removing the reason given by the lawyer of Jennifer Hough (Minaj's husband's sexual assault victim). If you had space to quote what both Minaj and Kenneth Petty's lawyer said, you can also add that. you gave a paragraph to Minaj's defense not using quotation marks (this: {{tq|The filing also alleged that Hough's story was inconsistent and had multiple discrepancies.}}), so that wasn't a problem for you there. And "Harassment" does not imply "to recant her account" at all.<br>And look at the language in your contribution here: {{tq|It is a common misconception that Minaj had helped Jelani, however, Minaj did not post her brother's bail}} , with the source being gossip blog Bossip {{small|(context for non-involved editors: Jelani Maraj was sentenced for SA minors and was bailed out; that it was not by Nicki Minaj is pushing a narrative)}}. Yet you removed the interview that Jennifer Hough gave to ''The Daily Beast'' beause it is a 'tabloid'. why does it feel you are taking sides on Hough's lawsuit?
# SNUGGUMS, whose contributions I've fully appreciated through the years and whose message made me come back, was clear: after removing the rest, you only left the COVID vaccine controversy in the section, then that topic becomes the header.
# Your argument is still basically ''Minaj said it so is true''.
# The quotation (from the subject) was "swollen testicles" caused by the vaccine, and[REDACTED] is not censored; yet you removed it.
# In the diff, that's you adding the promotional language.
# It was one bad word to be removed: yet you removed paragraphs of criticism of the Minaj song.


{{User|Naniwoofg}} has been the subject of a complaint at ] for issues involving images and ]. Finally posting this here so some sort of action could be taken per the comments at the aforementioned section. Note that said complaint includes refusal to respond to warnings and related stuff. ] (]) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, and I think I'm not the only that perceives it, you are using[REDACTED] as a tool for promotional language and to push narratives that benefit Minaj's image. ] (]) 05:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:Replying to the original comment, it's not necessarily a point violation to add the term to other articles after it was added to the one article due to an RfC. It really depends on the strength of the sources and how the editor engaged in discussion afterwards which isn't something I'm willing to look in to. It seems reasonable to me that an editor may feel adding terms like queen of rap to the lead of any article isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. When consensus develops to add it to one article, they may feel since the ] in that earlier case is clearly against them, perhaps the communities views of the situation is different from theirs and so it's reasonable to add it to others. Any editor opposing such a change in other articles needs to explain their support in that one article but opposition in the other, ] not withstanding. There may very well be reasons relating to the strength of the sources etc for why it belongs in one article but not the other, but if there isn't this does suggest their editing maybe unacceptably biased. ] (]) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


:Can we get a follow-up on this? @] has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. ] (] • ]) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Nil Einne}}, the consensus in that specific matter was that, if is backed by many sources, it is ok to add the nickname. I opened a conversation on Missy Elliott's talk page to make sure everything is ok about the topic, and a third-party editor opined the same. All three that had the nickname added were backed by numerous sources. Those three, at the same time, are not random articles that I never clicked on, I fully created and implemented their "Legacy" sections. ] (]) 08:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:'''Support''' sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on ] article, which . Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the ] ''before the 2019 renovation''. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) ==
===Break===
So, I'm pretty certain this discussion is an example of why we keep having ANI discussions about this without resolutions. They get so long-winded and spiraling that you're just going to scare away anyone from intervening. And that's not a great approach - eventually you're going to exhaust the community's patience and irritate some admin into doling out blocks. I'm often told I give people too many chances before blocking editors, and even ''I'm'' starting to get exhausted by all this. ] ] 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
:See? Carrying on like this has completely halted any progress or outsiders from intervening. You'll never get any resolution at this rate. ] ] 20:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br>


The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the ] pages and even had raised the issue here , with no visible actions following.
== Recently registered user has username issues ==
{{atop
| status = INDEFFED
| result = User by {{noping|Orangemike}} for an egregious violation of the username policy. {{non-admin closure}} ]]] 🇺🇦 01:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
}}


Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg


They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.


Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: ,


The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].


I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
So, there was a user that was recently registered. Their username is ]. The username itself is inappropriate and considered to be ]. Should we do something? ] (]) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:] is the place for such reports. I've already filed it. ] &#127809; <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I was just about to post that very same thing. Even though I'm an admin, I don't really work with usernames, so even I just report it to them, and let the regular admins with experience handle it. ] - ] 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the ], e.g. about normalising ], and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in ].
::I do a lot of work at ] these days. Normally, we do not block an editor for a dubious or problematic username unless there has been at least one obviously bad edit and no good edits. However, all rules have exceptions and I see this username as such an egregious violation that I think that an immediate hard block is correct. That is just what {{u|Orangemike}} has done, and I agree with him. ] (]) 02:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via ''de facto'' statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often ], which I cannot even comment on. ] (]) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
:::The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).
:::I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that {{User|Unas964}} should adhere to ] while {{user|Cherkash}} needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? ] (]) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith ] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. ] (]) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Out}}UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their ''de facto'' territories in out articles. ''De jure'', there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. ''De jure'', the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, ''de jure'' there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. ] (]) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== Can an admin move a leftover local description of Wikimedia Commons file? ==
::{{re|Simonm223}} Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their ''de facto'' state. ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
When a file is moved on Wikimedia Commons, a local description for it on Misplaced Pages is not moved as well and is left orphan. I have identified such local descriptions and ], but . Can admins move them? So that they would be in sync with name on Wikimedia Commons again? So that their content is displayed? BTW, you have to add <code>redirect=no</code> to see local descriptions instead of Wikimedia Commons page. ] (]) 12:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a ''fact'' that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a ''fact'' that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.
:], why is this on ] instead of ]? For the redirect thing, there's ]. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1647002692121:WikipediaBWLCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="BawlCmt">— <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 12:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
:::Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
::When I started adding it to WP:AN, I read: "If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." Because this is about concrete list of files to be fixed I saw it as a help request. ] (]) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::As a corollary it is ''in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals'' to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @] - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @] has seriously failed to ] by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::], hmm, I think you could be right. On the other hand, this isn't a true one-time issue as this will just keep happening. May need a bot operator for this.. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1647048449497:WikipediaBWLCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="BawlCmt">— <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 01:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
::::{{re|Simonm223}} I '''don't''' {{tq|have the terms backward there}}. I literally stated that {{tq|''De jure'', there's no Taiwan}}, and also what I meant for {{tq|facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world}}. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires ]. // and no, '''it is not''' {{tq|a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine}}, as ''de jure'' {{tq|the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union}}, as I had already wrote, because ''de jure'' the ] didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had ''de facto''. Do better. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Fastily}} or any other admin reading this: can you go to , press "Move page" and tell us if you get the dreaded "The filename chosen is already in use on a shared repository. Please choose another name." or not? I could probably help with recreation if moving is impossible, but I want to know first if moving ''is'' impossible. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1647123924419:WikipediaBWLCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="BawlCmt">— <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
::::Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I tried completing the rename request but MediaWiki won't let me proceed. Sure would be nice if the devs gave admins an option to override. The current solution/workaround is to ] the redirect and recreate the content page at the target title, provided that the redirect has no substantial history. This was the case here, so I've gone ahead and done that. The DYK template also exists at Commons, so I've ] it over to the Commons description page. -] 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::::According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and ]. In theory, that does not align with ], since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the ] the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. ] (]) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::], content pages recreated. Can you or another admin dump the contents of ] (partially NSFW)? (be careful not to delete the newly recreated pages, use ] if needed) There are like 172 local description pages there, 155 I recreated using ] and my script, the remaining 17 are mostly/all vandalism-sensitive pics like ] for which the bad image template page had already been recreated at the target by Cyberbot I. (not sure if there was anything else in there. probably not. the collection made me hurl so I didn't examine it ''that'' closely) <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1647193289503:WikipediaBWLCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="BawlCmt">— <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 17:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
:::::I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So, all of these redirects from old image names to new ones can be deleted? Just checking. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We also have ]. ] (]) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. ). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the ], ], ] and ] by some ''de facto laws''. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only ], ] and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. ]). That renders ''de facto maps'' a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
:Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|''de facto laws''}}? You're way too confused. {{langnf|la|de jure|by (some country's) law}} is the total opposite of {{langnf|la|de facto|by facts, in reality}}. That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, ]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (],] etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some ''consensus'' or ''de facto bodrers'' pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
*:If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. ] (]) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm a bit concerned that {{U|Unas964}} has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes , regarding ] "pro-Russian attacks." at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a ] mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to ] was reverted with an edit summary of - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. ] (]) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964===
== Σύμμαχος ==
{{userlinks|Σύμμαχος}}


I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to ] and that is replete with ] violations. They have a severe ] mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to ''help them understand'' concepts such as ] of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I recently reported this user for constantly altering (sourced) information . He was blocked for his conduct on the talk page of the article, but now has resumed his disruption of the article . --] (]) 13:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:'''Support''' I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. ] (]) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*It seems a little rich for the person who ] to now be just revert warring, and not contributing to the discussion at ] that xe xyrself started. I offered an expert source there who disagrees with ''both'' sides of the revert war here, and gives an explanation why. No comment by anyone to that thus far. ] (]) 14:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:Your proposal only enhances the pro-Russian stance and if enforced will serve as evidence that the Ukrainian (and according to the International Law) point of view is censored on Misplaced Pages, also making a precedent against ]. This is harmful for the entire community that might thus be considered as anti-Ukrainian in general. ] (]) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh do stop. I've been trying to be ''nice'' to you and all you've done in response is insult me repeatedly. This isn't twitter. Stop acting like it is. ] (]) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''support indef''' per the doubling down above of the ]. ] (]) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== User talk page access, Wiseguy012 ==
== Block evasion by Eastern Australian geography and BLP IP user ==
{{atop|result=I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Blocked user ] is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at ] and that they continued there as a sock account, {{noping|Friend0113}}, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? ] (]) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, ],
:There is no ] account. Did you mean someone else? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{noping|Wiseguy012}}, lower g. ] (]) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. ] ] 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. ] (]) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Still misuse of talk page for spamming. ] 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Caste-based disruption ==


{{u|HistorianAlferedo}} has engaged in contentious ] style editing in the ] related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in ] POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as ] (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:
*, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
*: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
*, , , , : POV caste-based insertions
*, : POV caste-based removals


This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a ] t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . ] (]) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{IPvandal|1.144.107.136}} Long term disruption, edit warring, maintenance template removal without explanation or resolving the problem, failure to use any meaningful edit summaries, failure to engage. Currently evading a block on ] @]: Did you want to take a look at this? May need a new rangeblock. (moved from AIV) ]]] 🇺🇦 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:], you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mako001}} Can you explain what shows that this is the same person evading the block? It isn't obvious from a quick look. ] (]) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::I probably should have mentioned that they are active on the /17 quite a bit more, which makes the pattern much more apparent. The behavioural similarities are quite clear: never uses any sort of meaningful edit summary, edits the same sort of articles (Eastern Australian named places (towns, cities and suburbs) and railway stations, also adds unsourced information, removes maintenance templates without fixing the problem or explaining why they aren't needed, and finally, is the only Australian based editor that I know of who changes Australian English to American English on articles clearly about Australian topics, even when there is a "use Australian English" template at the top. I will give some diffs in an hour of two if that would be more helpful? ]]] 🇺🇦 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you ] (]) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JBW}} Here are some diffs, note the addition of distances and elevation to the infobox as well, that is their most common edit. However, they never provide sources for it, and sometimes also change the existing distances and elevation without giving sources. They also replace non-breaking spaces with regular ones, and remove hidden comments.
:::], I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*Edits by 1.144.0.0/17:
::::Okay @]. Please have a look at pages: ] and ] I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@] just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you ] (]) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*Edits by 1.145.0.0/17
:::Does this make it clearer? ]]] 🇺🇦 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Mako001}} Yes, that does make it much clearer. Thank you. In fact the range 1.144.0.0/17 is much bigger than is needed, as all the editing from that range is actually in the smaller range 144.96.0/20. Almost all of the editing from that range in recent months is clearly from this editor, and the small number of other edits are divided between harmful edits (vandalism etc) and trivial edits, so risk of collateral damage is very small. I don't like blocking large IP ranges where there is likely to be any collateral damage at all, but on this occasion the risk of losing a few very minor non-disruptive edits seems to be overwhelming outweighed by the benefit, so I have blocked the range for a while. ] (]) 11:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::I was thinking that a smaller range would do this time around, but hadn't actually had a look at which exactly. Thanks for figuring that one out. I don't think that this will be the last we see of them though. ]]] 🇺🇦 11:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


== On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] ==
== Edin balgarin ==
{{atop
| status = User blocked.
| result = Blocked by Girth Summit. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC) {{nac}}
}}


I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.


To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.
<small>Note: I tweaked the header from it's original ''Edin balgarin and "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick"''; that's what some people are specifically referring to below. If anyone disagrees I'll defer to them, but my thought is, especially now that this has run its course, there's no need for that obnoxiousness to show up on watchlists and archive tables of contents. --] (]) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC))</small>


Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from ]. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In ] and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on.
{{user links|Edin balgarin}}


From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to ] we reached a consensus after several days of discussion.
Most days this stuff doesn't bother me and but at this moment I am emotionally taxed and not in a mood to tolerate this bullshit. On my user talk page, Edin balgarin and {{U|Horse Eye's Back}} were discussing ] after being notified of ] restrictions and discretionary sanctions on ]. Edin balgarin took exception to being referred to as "they". This was the most recent post I found when I logged in:{{blockquote|We haven't cleared anything up. "They/them/theirs" is most definitely not some "general concepion". It is a new-fangled brain fart. When they taught me English in Bulgaria, they said "they" is for plural, and we were not to even generalise when the sex wasn't known. Instead we continued the longstanding convention of "he" until it is known otherwise. I previously referred to you as "he", and if you are a biological female then I wholeheartedly apologise for having ascribed the wrong sex. If you indeed came into this world with a Y chromosome then there is nothing to apologise for simply because you choose to identify as something else. I have seen the Misplaced Pages practice of referring to some individuals as "they" and I am likely not to touch those articles, because I stand by the adage that "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick". Yes people like me are considered dinosaurs, and I know that here in the west where I live, it demonstrates a major chasm between older and younger generations. In Bulgaria where I am from, it has not regressed to that phoniness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are one of these. You are simply one person who is well within your right on this otherwise anonymous project to conceal every aspect of your life story - and what's more, I support and protect that right. I am also a realist and accept that some people come into this world, are believed at birth to be one thing and later on discover that internally, they have some properties of the other sex. I refer to intersex which I think applies to about 0.5% (1 in 200) of people who come into this world. But not even they get to use this discrepancy to go from "he" to "she", let alone "they" depending how they feel at the time of day. It's a scientific phenomenon, and it presents language problems because tongues developed over millennia to see male and female without thinking that some configurations are a mash-up of the two despite the individual being perfectly healthy in every way. "They" however is reserved for where we know there is more than one. The word will never be ambiguous, i.e. "when you say 'they', do you mean there was more than one person, or were you referring to an individual that denies the biological sex and denies identifying as the opposite sex"? That's never going to happen. I take care to write this language in accordance with the prescriptive tradition, and the style guides I use (such as Simon Heffer whom you won't like) don't even recommend saying "he or she". I see no problem with saying, "he or she was driving too fast" when a car shoots passed at a dangerous speed, but the guidance is that until we know different, "he" extends meaning. Saying "they were driving too fast" because I couldn't see if it were a man or a woman is plain asinine. I'm sorry Horse Eye's Back. It is one or the other.}} Given that I'm not able to be neutral about this right now, I'm bring this incident it here for review. ] ] 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as ] as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles.
:Well I can definitely say it’s absolutely '''beyond''' a conduct violation to address a pronoun misunderstanding with that virulently transphobic wall of text. ] (]) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


When I had nominated his article ] for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to ]. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me.
*It's interesting that he claims to be very very very concerned about the proper use of pronouns, but is still of the opinion that it is OK to refer to a transgender person as "it" (as long he thinks it's hilarious, I guess?). I take this as definite proof that he is not actually a strict grammarian, but instead a garden variety bigot. While pronoun use is still in flux, and I'm not interested in sanctioning people who are just confused or still on a learning curve, I am inclined to block people who demonstrate that they are actual bigots hiding behind the fig leaf of grammar. At this point, I'm inclined to block indef, the same as we would do with a racist or misogynist. Any objection? --] (]) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Yeah, there's no way of reading this as someone who is innocently confused; it's blatant transphobia and we would never accept equally blatant sexism or racism. I would support an indef block. ] (]) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:'''Indef block''' this kind of bigotry is inexcusable, and even “learning curve” isn’t a justification (not that’d be anyway) because they’ve been here since 2015. ] (]) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Indef block.''' Either they truly don't understand the basics of English, in which case they should not be editing here anyways, or they are choosing to apply a fundamental misunderstanding of English in order to push an anti-trans POV. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''At least a warning''' as noted, this goes beyond mere translation issues. Also, as a self-described prescriptivist, I am a bit surprised this editor considers himself a greater authority than one William Shakespeare, who had no problem with singular "they." Cheers, all. ] (]) 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Too late. Blonked. ] (]) 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*::Yes - I have blocked. I tried to post here but kept getting edit conflicts. In short, even when wearing my extra-thick rose-tinted AGF goggles, I think that this was someone being willfully offensive towards someone he disagreed with, which just isn't acceptable. ]] 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly ] and a suspected COI paid editing on article like ]. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see
== Checking needed ==
{{atopg
| status =
| result = {{u|Ngancheekean}} has been warned for both their editorial practices and behavioral issues; "as for the complaint about {{u|Onel5969}}, it is obvious that ]". {{nac}} ] 17:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
}}


He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here {{redacted}}. I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.
{{vandal|Onel5969}} He is a long time[REDACTED] editor. He didn't improve the article and keeps moving my page. Finally, he wanted to delete it. 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have ] relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article ]. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.
:<nowiki>{{Expand Chinese}}</nowiki> I think is a good tool, so any action next that i can do?
:I have pages hung, coz i cant undid it, or im blocked. I dont know what to do next. I think is very serious acting almighty or start a civil war.


I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed ] on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get ] or ] by him as we both are from ], India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
] Restored revision 1076526187 by Onel5969 (talk): As per WP:BURDEN, do not readd uncited material, and as per WP:DDE, it could get you blocked. You also might want to cool it with vandalism claims, which also could get you blocked.


:I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.
] Undid revision 1076543612 by Ngancheekean (talk)You do not appear to get it, as per WP:BURDEN. The next time I'll be forced to go to ANI about this, as well as the vandal comments. Please stop. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
:{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}}
:In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
:If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided ]. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
:I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits ==
:I agree with {{u|Onel5969}}'s reverts. The english was very poor, and when the prose was (rarely) sourced, the sources were mostly unreliable. Also, you have to notify editors when you start a discussion about them. I've done so for you, as well as moved your post from the top of the page where you placed it directly under the instructions {{tq|NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE}}. It seems likely that you lack the english language skills to edit this Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
<br>I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|TTYDDoopliss}}


Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?
:Also, see ], where {{they|Ngancheekean}} brought up the same thing (and missed the same instruction to add to the bottom of the page). — <span style="color:#aaa">&#123;{u&#124;]}&#125;</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:Just wanted to add on that there's nothing stopping you from going to the ] and editing there. To be polite, your English is not good enough to write Misplaced Pages articles if this is the best you can do. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::@] While not intended, that is a little rude to tell someone their edits are not welcome here. ] - ] 06:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


The user in question is relatively new. (Yes, an early edit stated she had a previous account, but she used it for roughly one day in December 2024 before {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|losing her password}}, and she had no warnings at all on the account, so abuse of multiple accounts does not apply here.
:So it went missing again. Thats just so poor. ] (]) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


With her new account, she quickly {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic|diffonly=yes}}, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including:
I just noticed that Ngancheekean copied previous versions of the associated articles that had been removed/reverted/changed by Onel5969 at ] and ]. I mentioned on their talk page that "the talk page is designed for discussion of the page". ] (]) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


* This sequence of edits to ]:
:I’m concerned, after reviewing ], that they have ] issues along with ], a potent combination.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270570240|Edit summary: ''men don’t be utterly deprived and ruin women’s lives by being a sex pest challenge (don’t revert if you’re a man, you’re disgusting and I want nothing to do with you guys)''|diffonly=yes}}
::I copied some of his text.I think what he said ''learning to use vandalism'', might hurt wiki.
** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270571663|Edit summary: ''Undid revision 1270571008 by C.Fred (talk) how many more women are going to be hurt by continuing to let men like this in the game industry''|diffonly=yes}}
::#
* {{Diff|Dawn M. Bennett|prev|1270573048|To Dawn M. Bennett|diffonly=yes}}, removing an image with the edit summary ''she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image''
::#
* {{Diff|User talk:TTYDDoopliss|prev|1270578539|To her own user talk|diffonly=yes}}, removing a thread that included warnings with the edit summary ''please leave me alone, im trying to lessen my suffering as a woman in a male-dominated world''
::#
::#''' ] (]) 17:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I concede her point that, generally speaking, men in the world have done and continue to do pretty crappy things to women. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place to ], and IMO, some of her edits are even going counter to the viewpoint she holds. I also know that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social platform, and I worry that her behaviour, unchecked, will result in her crossing a line that gets her blocked, where an admin, regardless of gender, has to stop the disruption.
There are numerous problems with {{u|Ngancheekean}}'s editing, with ], ], and ] combining together to prevent attempts by other editors to help from succeeding. I have posted a message to their talk page, warning that a block is likely if their editing doesn't change. As for the complaint about {{u|Onel5969}}, it is obvious that it has no merit whatsoever. ] (]) 17:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


I'd like somebody to reach out to her to give her some advice before it gets to that point, and—while I generally think that any editor can do any job on Misplaced Pages regardless of gender—I think this a situation where a non-male or cisfemale administrator should be the one to make the contact. —''']''' (]) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== telephone number needs attention ==
:I was going to suggest that if there's any founded concerns a trans woman would get bitten in this hypothetical interaction then we should probably just ] right now. However then I went and looked at the diffs in question and the discussion that was on the user's talk page and I have to ask: has anyone considered this might all be a troll? ] (]) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{atop|status=Oversighted|result=Content and revisions oversighted at ] {{nac}} — <span style="color:#aaa">&#123;{u&#124;]}&#125;</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)}}
::perhaps my useful non-gender related edits might tip you off to the fact that im not a troll? here’s something non-gender related articles i fixed up: ], ], ] ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Could someone revdel the Teahouse ] item "FREE Renarldo Cartagena at fishkill correctional BY Maria cartagena ...." as it contains what looks like a telephone number ] (]) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think this is a straightforward ] or ] block. Misplaced Pages quite a number of women editors and they seem to be fine and don't seem to experience overt persecution. I just don't see how this user can reasonably be expected to collaborate with others, a core requirement of Misplaced Pages editing, if they're just going to accuse everyone else of being misogynists. ] (]) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:The editnotice here specifically states, {{tq|If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or , do not post it here.}} This should be oversighted as it's personal information, so I've already emailed the oversighter team. — <span style="color:#aaa">&#123;{u&#124;]}&#125;</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them ''removing'' mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{re|Bsoyka}}, sorry, I'll remember next time. Thank you for sorting it; I see it's been redacted appropriately. ] (]) 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Yeah, ] in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. ] (]) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No problem, everyone misses things sometimes. — <span style="color:#aaa">&#123;{u&#124;]}&#125;</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::::just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] Hrm. So is the inference that you ''willingly and knowingly'' made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —''']''' (]) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq|benefit of the doubt}}{{snd}}Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? ]] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Surprised they weren't blocked after the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::that’s… not an insult? just an observation ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL ] (]) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over ], it’s easier and takes less time. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is ''not'' what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm suspecting trolling, here. ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for ] violations. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information ''about the exploitation caused by the games industry'' - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make ''women working in the games industry literally less visible,'' seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body}} Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay.]] 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks.]] 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::clearly you’ve never had a ], or ]. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You've already been told by {{U|Liz}}, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked.]] 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*], I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed.
:And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like ] but for women? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm looking at edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --] (]) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::There's which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. ] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::What we would expect is to find ] compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in ] in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. ] (]) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::OK. Now I'm looking at edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. ] (]) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I removed it because it made me upset.}} What? Have you read ] and ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just ], a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::fine ill shut up now ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: also looks like parody. ] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the ''male'' protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. ] (]) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No one said or implied any such thing. ] (]) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: actually takes a ] cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners."
:::::::However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Because you have disrupted multiple topics. ] (]) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. ] (]) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::what can I do to make you guys believe me? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That ship has sailed. ] (]) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked them. It's clear we're being trolled. They're not only offensively characterising men, they're offensively characterising women and people with mental illnesses. Thay also can't keep their own lies and beliefs straight. We're done here. ] ] 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Proposal: Indefinite block ===
For disruptive editing and ]. I propose that TTYDDoopliss be indefintely blocked. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per nom. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. In addition, ] and ]. - ] ] 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' For the reasons and multitudinous diffs cited above I believe this whole dog and pony show is a troll. ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per above. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, and some of us are bound to be male. If you can't work collaboratively, you can't work at all. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just ], their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I believe we're being trolled. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. Good block by CT.]] 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' TTYDDoopliss asked, several times over, what she could do to avoid a general block. Over and over again, she refused to respond in the one way that would have helped her: by saying that she'd clean up her act and stop dumping her own issues onto this site. Even if we weren't being trolled, any time an ] person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. ] 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== ]: ] and ] behaviour. ==
== Help me create a talk page? ==
{{archive top|result=Done by {{u|Shirt58}}. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 04:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Would an admin create ] with {{tlx|welcome-COI}}? Titles involving this person's name are currently blacklisted because of long-term abuse, but I'm not convinced that this person is a sockpuppet (although I am not personally familiar with the relevant LTAs, ] and ]); I think he's legitimately clueless. Once an admin creates the page, everyone should be able to interact with this editor normally. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 20:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the ]. They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at ] and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue.
== Jack Sebastian ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = And on that tone, let's end it here, while the going's good. Nothing more needs to be said. {{non-admin closure}} ]]] 🇺🇦 11:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
}}






Disagreement over content on ] gradually morphed into open mockery (edit summary:"jeez, what a ]"). Not sure if this is because consensus was overwhelmingly against them or if its a personal distaste for me. The latest and what puts it over the line into an ANI issue for me:


"Wrong again, horsey. I disagree with some viewpoints, which is very different from dismissing them. I get why you might make that mistake, as both of them start out being spelled the same before making a series of sharp turns into different meanings. Here's a link to , so you can avoid getting all confused again. You're welcome. Now, do you want to simply go away, or shall I taunt you some more?"


(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)
I don't believe that such false civility, taunting, or name calling is appropriate and Jack Sebastian seems fully aware of what they are doing. ] (]) 21:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:Didn't you kind of start that ? {{tq|Yes we understand that is *your personal opinion* but to be brutally blunt we do not give a flying f*ck what your personal opinion is... By sharing it you're wasting both our time and your own.}} It looks like the discussion was civil until that point. ]&nbsp;] 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:: The incivility began with this false accusation "Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a problem with -re-adding, without correction, text that you yourself know to be worded so as to be actively false." against ] before I even offered a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a pattern here of feigning confusion in order to insult or belittle. We also have "It is your contention that Salo is currently a remnant of and a rump of nazi Germany, yes?" which by that point in the conversation could not possibly be taken as Farius's contention. Not saying my conduct was angelic, but there are important lines I didn't cross. ] (]) 21:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*I understand that things got progressively worse here, and HEB is not blameless, but JS's last comment was way over the line, and JS's behavior in that whole thread was poor. I've removed the last comment as it was not related to the content of the article, and will block if it is reinstated. It appears that the actual content issue is settled, so hopefully neither one of you needs to continue talking in that section. --] (]) 22:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I admit that HEB managed to push every single one of my buttons in alphabetical order from the get go, and I responded poorly. Though I did make continued attempts at civility and de-escalation, they were unsucessful with this particular user.
*:I'm not going to go into the content issues, as a consensus was found, and I agreed to follow it. That ''should'' have been the end of it, but HEB felt the throbbing need to take cheap shots at me. It was pretty much the final straw; I fucking ''despise'' bullies, as they are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. It begs the question as to why someone with so little good faith in both parties requiring 3O would be rendering Third Opinions at all.
*:But it is what it is; I went too far, and I apologize for my part in it. I have zero plans to interact with HEB wherever he pops up again. I would ask that he do me the same favor. - ] (]) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*::Not consenting to an interaction ban. I also think you need to take a long look in the mirror, "Now, do you want to simply go away, or shall I taunt you some more?" is bullying on an almost comical english boarding school level... ] (]) 05:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::HEB, with all due respect (and I do indeed respect you), there's no need to prolong this. Have a nice weekend. ] (]) 05:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::I appreciate the advice and its good, but I'm not walking off someone viciously bullying me and then turning around and calling me a bully. "but HEB felt the throbbing need to take cheap shots at me. It was pretty much the final straw; I fucking despise bullies, as they are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. It begs the question as to why someone with so little good faith in both parties requiring 3O would be rendering Third Opinions at all." is over the line as far as ] is concerned. ] (]) 05:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::::''"I left the woman at the riverbank, so why are you still carrying her?" <sup><small>''</small></sup> - <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
* Just to offer some perspective: You people and your what-the-history-books-say arguments have got it ''easy''. Over on {{article|client state}} editors were citing Julian Assange's mother. See its talk page. One editor found a 23 page conference paper by two political science professors modelling the various ways in which the United States has historically formed client states of various kinds, from which one would have ''thought'' one could get sourced analysis of a complex thing, and used it at ] to support the content "&#x25aa; {{Flag|Spain}}". So be kind to each other. You history book readers could be having it ''a lot worse''. You could be up against a mass of editors who do things like take 2 words of headlinese and think it to be enough. Or Julian Assange's mother. ] (]) 14:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*:Oof. You win, Uncle G. - ] (]) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like.
== Personal attacks by Pofka ==
* {{Userlinks|Pofka}}


More specifically this line:
It's the second time I am reporting this user, ]. He continues his behavior. Basically, every discussion with him is problematic. As I said in October he is accusing me of the lowest motives. he accused me of "desire to spread false Polish superiority propaganda", although I was merely explaining to him why the term "Partitions of Poland" are more popular in English literature than "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania", other than some "Polish historians' conspiracy". I warned him to stop insulting me or I will report his behavior. Nonetheless, he did it again and accused me of "". I don't think I deserve such treatment.] (]) 21:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
*<s>Please make sure you notify all concerned editors of this discussion on their talk page.</s> -] (]) 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::Never mind. I see that you did and I just missed it. -] (]) 23:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Comment}} Marcelus is actively performing ] activity in Misplaced Pages. There is ongoing discussion (]), but he is not waiting for the ] there and is performing the questioned actions by himself alone. He created this report as an act of revenge for me when I stressed his recent activity at the same WP:NPOV discussion (see: ). In the article "Partitions of Poland" he basically said that ] (]) was called ] (), thus falsely presuming that Lithuania was annexed by Poland or didn't exist at all (similar to Putin's propaganda that ] have no statehood traditions). Just by looking at the name of the article ] it is evident that such claims are absolutely false. Such anti-Lithuanian claim and actions of Marcelus reminds ] which is strictly prohibited here. And he is still accusing me of anything... -- ] (]) 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:::And the slander continues, now I am compared with Putin. I insist administrators take action in order to stop ] from these constant personal attacks. ] (]) 17:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Marcelus}} It was you who said that Lithuania was simply called Poland and this way tried to deny its existance, not me (). I never questioned Poland's existence or name. It is not my aim in Misplaced Pages to deny other countries existence or names. I respect Poland as much as my own country as it is a historical and current ally. Lithuania deserves as much respect as Poland and per ], ] nobody should be allowed to falsely try to deny its existence or name. -- ] (]) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


{{tq|Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through.}} (right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change)
===Proposal: put an end to this nonsense===
These two users seem to have a mutual problem - I remember when this previously went to ArbCom (where it was correctly declined as premature and already covered by the Eastern Europe DS area), but the situation hasn't really improved since then. Since Pofka and Marcelus don't seem to be able to collaborate with each other without having a mandatory visit to the dramaboard every while and then, then the simple solution is to impose a '''mutual interaction ban''' (see ]) so that hopefully both editors can find something else to edit without stepping on each other's toes. It takes two to dance, and the prolonged duration of this doesn't inspire any confidence that this can be resolved otherwise. ] (] / ]) 17:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (] / ])
*'''Support'''. I might go one step further and topic-ban them from the area entirely. There are millions of articles in other areas that either of them can edit without being stirred to such discord. ] ] 17:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{replyto|BD2412}} Please pay attention to the fact that this report about me was created by Marcelus when I provided examples (see: , ) at ] how he is ignoring the said discussion and is continuing the Polonization of Lithuanian names despite no ] was reached as of yet there. He presented such warnings as personal attacks. Whaaat? I provided some strong arguments there and it is strongly doubtful that his actions will be according to the upcoming WP:CONS. It is he, not me who is ignoring that discussion and is creating new conflicts, chaos in other articles. I did not removed any Polish names/words and I'm waiting for a WP:CONS at the discussion. And now he even initiated this report in order to censor my counterarguments. I said that he is spreading Polish superiority propaganda because he said that Lithuania was called Poland (see: ) and aggressively attempted to defend such obviously false claim. I can't see how such claims of his qualifies as ], ]. He literally attempted to deny my home country's name and existence. With all due respect, but such claims about the ] are a pure propaganda as it existed as a separate country in 1236–1795 and never was Poland. On the contrary, I did not performed any anti-Polish edits and never attempted to discredit Poland or its name. It will be really sad for me if I will be blocked after 11 years in Misplaced Pages for defending my home country's name, existence and language, but if it will be the final decision – then I will have to respect it. Waiting for your decision, -- ] (]) 19:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::: I am not proposing to block you from Misplaced Pages, but clearly you have an attachment to the subject area that would not impede your editing in other areas. ] ] 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - What are you talking about @]? - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
* @] Please explain this to me, because I do not understand something. According to what you are proposing, I should not report constant insults and harassment by another user because I could be blocked from editing articles in which I have knowledge and interest? In addition, you have linked a discussion in ArbCom in which I did not participate, but in which ] participated. I only commented in the thread about the merger of the two articles. It seems to me that there is a place on Misplaced Pages to discuss articles and these discussions can get heated, but we should refrain from personal attacks. I just wish ] would stop referring to me as a "Polish nationalist" etc. And can you explain what you understand by "dramaboard" and "this nonsense"? ] (]) 21:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' - I think that by the use of the term 'dramaboard', the user is referring to the way that some people use this board to argue over some content issue so as to then argue in the article that the 'sdmins agreed with me not you' in a way that is reminiscent of children running to Mama to tattle on the other. It is not a complimentary comparison. I think it is important to point out that you have possible been far too passionate about this particular topic, which is not a Good Thing. You are internalizing the edits, but that is to be expected; people edit what they care about. And to be fair, Marcelus has been goaded and manipulated into appearing to be the one who needs a break.
:I think it should be pointed out that Pofka has been casting those sorts of aspersions that both last a while after they are said and particularly sting. If indeed Marcelus is a "Polish nationalist" (and I am not suggesting he is), then comparing him to a Russian is a particularly nasty comparison; the majority of Poles ''loathe'' Russia, and being compared to who is currently not only the leader of that country but a leader who is currently viewed quite negatively by the world<sup><small></small></sup> seems a particularly manipulative move on the part of Pofka. I've seen other users do this before (hell, even I have in the past), and its always about thinking you're smarter than the other guy. That doesn't work in Misplaced Pages - not at all. We lose scores of honest contributors because of this type of behavior.
:It is because of this that I feel this is indeed a behavioral issue regarding Pofka's poor interactions regarding dissent, and not the typical - albeit sticky - content issue. Pofka needs a formal warning about this sort of attack-y behavior; it's corrosive to the idea of collaboration - the centerpiece of Misplaced Pages's strengths. - ] (]) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment by Pofka''' {{replyto|RandomCanadian}} {{replyto|Jack Sebastian}} Marcelus tried to prove "historical" fact that ] was called ] (). So how such claims can be described? It indeed reminds nationalism. I used Putin's manipulation of history as an example because he also said that Ukraine is just Russia. Ukraine never was Russia and Lithuania never was Poland. Straight facts. So Marcelus' wording seemed like a really similar case. I have nothing against Poles and I had successfully collaborated with Poles in the past. We have a glorious history together and we must respect each other instead of trying to prove someone's superiority or attempt to discredit Poland/Lithuania or Lithuanian/Polish languages. Just a reminder: I initiated a discussion at ] to rename article ] into Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in order to include both countries names when Marcelus began dropping "facts" that Lithuania was just called Poland. By doing so, I did not attempted to discredit Poland or its name. I create quality content in Misplaced Pages for over 11 years and never said such non-senses about other countries and never questioned their existence or names. On the contrary, as far as I checked Marcelus' edits mostly are related with Polonization of Lithuanian noble families names, etc. It was Marcelus who attempted to prove that "historical" fact and dragged me into this dirty discussion that Lithuania is just Poland. I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't ignore it when such false claims are being spread about my country as "historical" fact. -- ] (]) 17:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*: Really calm down. If you hadn't noticed I agreed with you in this discussion by saying: "Personally, I don't mind renaming articles for consistency, the name "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is generally accepted on Misplaced Pages to describe this country". I was simply trying to give you a reason why the term "Partitions of Poland" is so popular in English literature. Simply put, the whole of the Commonwealth was often referred to, especially in the 18th century, as "Poland". This does not mean that the GDL ceased to exist, it was simply the result of a long-standing union. That's all. ] (]) 19:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well.
== Does this fall under ]? ==
{{archive top|result=No action. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)</span>
:{{small|Malformed close fixed. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)}}}}
This IP, {{ip|86.58.92.148}}, has made edits that are consistent with far-right ideologies, such as the removal of as being a anti-semitic canard and such as ] and ] as being "Communist propaganda". ] (]) 08:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
:Not sure I'd instantly label it as pro-Nazi edits, but it's certainly disruptive. Normal disruptive edit warnings would be appropriate here. — ''']''' 08:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::Agreed, tiresome POV pushing but not enough evidence to say that the editor is singing '']''.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::And singing ''Springtime for Hitler'' is not in itself sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Some musical comedy is just... musical comedy. ] (]) 08:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} I would go further. Throwing around NONAZIS allegations like that is in itself disruptive. IP86 seems to be engaged in general right-wing POV. What’s it got to do with NONAZIS? In fact, suggests the IP is not a fan of Fascist economic policy at least. ] (]) 08:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Depends a lot on who's doing the singing. "Cultural Marxism" is not a "general" right-wing view; decrying Nazi Germany as not capitalist is not a "general" right-wing view. Angela Merkel is "general" right wing. I don't see the OP's comment as a wild aspersion, but as an editor showing welcome caution. Regards, --] (]) 11:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::Both edits have been reverted (one actually reverted, the other re-added) and a Level 1 warning left. As there have been no further edits from that IP in 48 hours, this can probably be closed. Regards, --] (]) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:Noting that OP's IP is a proxy; I have blocked. --] (]) 14:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with ''. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for ''so'' many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs.
== Editor(s) refactoring articles ==
Pages edited are various language versions of ]. A lot of editing and page history added. Winners being changed, dates altered. IPs geolocate around Pulilan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines. Editor(s) often edit the sandbox after their edits are reverted. I first noticed the problem when the event date was set to after the citation date.<br />
Is there any method to correlate IPs from that area editing the other language versions? e.g. for vandalism? What to do about this? A range/article series block?<br />
The IPs I've logged:
*{{userlinks|120.29.105.33}}
*{{userlinks|120.29.105.77}}
*{{userlinks|120.29.106.12}}
*{{userlinks|20.29.105.39}}
*{{userlinks|120.29.107.139}}


'''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{pagelinks|Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek TV series)}} Added a 2021 eighth season using 2013 citations. {{diff||1076417220|1075943528|Diff}} Needs repair.
**{{pagelinks|Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek series 1)}} Example {{diff||next|1076419296|Changes the date}} from April 14, 2013 to September 13,2021 The source is dated April 15, 2013 and the access date is February 20, 2014.
**{{pagelinks|Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek series 2)}} Example {{diff||1076641026|1076631444|diff}} changed the winner of Week 5 from Betty Maggira to Onyok Pineda. The citation following gives the winner as Betty Maggira.
**{{pagelinks|Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek series 7)}} Added an unsourced season 8 {{diff||1076414469|1056724099|here}}.
*Russian series
**{{pagelinks|Odin v odin! (season 1)}} Appear to have been repaired. Seasons 2&3 appear untouched
**{{pagelinks|Toch-v-Toch}} Need repair
*Polish series
**{{pagelinks|Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo}} {{user|MartinCZ1243}} appears to have repaired much of the changes. (Thank you!)
**{{pagelinks| Tvoje tvář má známý hlas}} Repaired by MartinCZ1243
I wonder if there is more, but I'm overwhelmed at the moment. ] (]) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


The page-in-question ''should'' be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. ] (]) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== Ordinary Person - Original research and disruption in the topic of historical wealth. ==


:I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. ] 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{user links|Ordinary Person}}


:I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: {{u|Warrenmck}} wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.
I recently looked at a few articles on historical wealthy figures and noticed that a number of them were making completely ridiculous claims about the value of their net worth adjusted to modern money. Looking at the article histories it seems that this account has been performing a combination of their own original reasearch and calculations and blindly converting articles to use the {{tl|inflation}} template, regardless of what actual sources say.
:What {{u|Warrenmck}} does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up ''all the time''. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.
:For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was {{u|Czello}}. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.
:I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've ''added'' additional citations to address {{u|Warrenmck}}'s concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. '''] ]''' 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a ''minor faction'', per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that
::{{quote|Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?}}
::and you responded
::{{quote|Which is labeling the party as it.}}
::Which isn't how NPOV editing works.
::Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.
::{{tq|I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes}}
::Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point . Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. ''I did not make the change I knew would be controversial'', that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal () Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.
::This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. ] 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.
:::What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? '''] ]''' 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Literally in this ANI:
::::{{tq|Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"}}
::::That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:
::::{{tq|Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing.}} ] 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You are making a distinction without a difference. '''] ]''' 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. ] (]) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


* ] appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. ] ] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Blindly using the inflation template in this manner is not an appropriate way of converting historic net worth's to modern net worth's, inflation is a measure of the change in price of consumer goods and the cost of living, it does not work when applied to sums of money making up significant proportions of a national economy.
*:I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks ]:
*:{{quote|An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.}}
*:The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here ] and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a ''hell'' of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.
*:Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has ]ed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As ] said, {{tq|"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"}} ] 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. ] 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place ''after'' I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer ] problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an ] mentality. ] (]) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::@] appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. and . I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:
*::::{{tq|The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late}}
*::::Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @] appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up ''all over''[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. ] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. ] (]) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find ''years'' worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.
*::::::If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling ] 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. ] (]) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. ] (]) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. ] (]) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Respectfully ] and ] are behavioural problems. ] (]) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse ().
For a typical example of a problematic edit look at this edit to ] . The edit replaces an estimate of 400 billion with an inflation template, despite inflation being a meaningless measure when applied to 2-3% of the US's GDP. Their edit directly contradicts the sources in the article - the sources directly following the inflation template give an estimate of 300 - 400 billion dollars calculated as a proportion of GDP and certainly do not support the 23 billion calculated using inflation now present in the article. On the talk page they explain how they have calculated this figure , which drew criticism from another IP editor for being "bad original research".
:while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree ''at all'' makes this pretty ] behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for ]. ] 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' ] for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was
:{{quote|Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.}}
:This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. ] 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to ] more than ]. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. ] (]) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. ] 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. ] (]) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. ] (]) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.}}
::::And ''very clearly'' retaliatory. ] 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per ]: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.
:::::You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. '''] ]''' 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}}
::::::Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the ''exact'' types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. ] 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. '''] ]''' 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with {{U|Springee}} about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. ] (]) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for ''the exact same behaviour''. ] 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. <s>This is because it says that the party isn't ''just'' a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist ] and the fascist propagandist ]. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". </s>] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ok here's the correct quote now: {{tq|The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.<br /> This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.<br /> While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.}}
::::::Now this article does compare the ''Democratic party'' as a whole to ''Trump'' on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is {{tq|It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it.}} The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. ] (]) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Also, the ''New York Times'' introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." ] says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.
:::::::It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.
:::::::My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. ] (]) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what ] says {{tq|When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.}} ] (]) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. ] (]) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. ] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's a few more examples of problem edits. Ripping out sourced information to replace it with a application of the inflation template with no sources supporting 300 million dollars us equivalent . This utterly ridiculous calculation where they convert one historical currency to another, then convert to USD, then chuck into an inflation template, replacing properly sourced information with an estimate 1000 times smaller . Ripping out sourced information to replace it with application of an inflation template and an edit summary assertion that their net worth was x ] (]) 11:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


:{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}}
:The issue is that the source material is not saying what the article editors seem to think it is saying. It might be interesting to compare different historical figures on the basis of what percentage of the national economy their wealth made up, but this is not the same as comparing them on the basis of their actual wealth. . Sir James Ratcliffe is not just wealthier than anyone who lived in the 11th century AD: he has more wealth than the entire economy of Great Britain in the 11th century AD. I've no objection to the existence of an article on the topic of a list of historical figures' wealth by percentage of national economy, but it is simply erroneous to purport that such a list would be a list of wealthiest historical figures. ] (]) 13:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ordinary Person, I'm concerned that you might be carrying out novel calculations that reach conclusions which aren't found in the sources.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== User:Ellinewilliams231 and editing behavior ==
::I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. ] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.
::If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.
::On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. ] (]) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::See ]: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
::::Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?
::::If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. ] (]) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. ] (]) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page:
# The OP made a thread on ] saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right".
# Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this.
# ???
# AN/I thread
Is there anything I'm missing here? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? ] 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?
::But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. '''] ]''' 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: {{tq|There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines}}. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.


:::You’ve been doing this for ''years'' and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been ''very'' explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @]’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a ]. ] 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: ], just in case anyone wants to review it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @] engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating
:::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}}
:::::In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing .
:::::A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. ] 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*As I expected, {{ping|Warrenmck}} - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
::::::*First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the ] page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of ''this'' report.
::::::*Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you ''still cannot define what POV I am pushing'' - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning ''is''. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list ] and ] as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is ''yours'', because it's been utterly ridiculous.
::::::*You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. '''I think everything I said is correct'''. Your proposal was '''bad'''. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
::::::*Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me '''here''' of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to ''agree'' with me.
::::::*Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
::::::*I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting '''my''' time, you are wasting '''your''' time, and you're wasting '''everyone's''' time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. '''] ]''' 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*:As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. ] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*::TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are ''several new peer reviewed sources'' that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of ''multiple other editors'' and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. ] (]) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*:::A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of ], ], and ]. ] 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*:Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:
::::::*:{{tq|Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.}}
::::::*:Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the ''context'' in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a .
::::::*::'''1.''' You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.
::::::*::'''2.''' Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for ''years'', once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not
::::::*::'''3.''' In the absence of any substantive objection, ] material should be added in.
::::::*:] doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and ] then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. ] 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*If you're going to accuse {{ping|Springee}} of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
::::::::*Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a ] exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
::::::::*With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. '''] ]''' 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*:Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @], who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. ] (]) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*::Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? ] (]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*:::I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. ] (]) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*::I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. ] (]) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Warrenmck}}, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards ]. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, I can back away ] 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Reading through this, it does seem that Toa is engaged in polite POV pushing and dismissing any source they dislike, along with some ]y tagging in retaliation for their own cites being questioned. At this point, I think an ] filing for the ] is needed. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you please explain what POV I am pushing here?
::Additionally: I want to emphasize that my source checks have resulted in ''no change to the prose of the article'' - this is because each of the source groupings (which had over a half-dozen, or verging on a dozen citations each) have at least one or more source(s) that actually meet the claim in question, and I think the claims in question are, demonstrably, pretty accurate. The source reviews are simply removing cases of ] that don't actually meet the specific claims in question. As far as I can tell, none of these citation groupings were added by Warrenmck or other involved editors in question here; I didn't object on page to the inclusion of content related to right-wing populism, I didn't object to it being added to the infobox, and I didn't object to it being added to the lead - and I don't object to the inclusion of said content now. The only thing I object to is the inclusion of citations that don't back up claims. Do you have any specific objections to the sources that I've tagged? '''] ]''' 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Repeated WP:GS/AA violations ==
{{u|Ellinewilliams231}} has been repeatedly warned about unsourced edits, original research, not providing edit summaries, and addition of wrong edits to articles, but there seems no changes to their editing patterns and no acknowledgment to the warnings. The main article where this user is problematic is at ]. They are mainly the one adding the scores, and there is a official source that is already linked in the article, but this user seems to be adding their own calculations, instead of the official ones. Some of their edits are also just wrong as well, and it's a burden to check their edits and clean up the wrong one every time. Another editing behavior that this user has is providing information ever if it is not yet assured or confirmed, such as and . This user also seems to not know what they're doing, as shown where they made an unblock request, even if they're not blocked. Warnings are of no use so I decided to bring it up here. '''<sup>] ] ]</sup>''' 12:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
: Sorry, I erred. I was reverted by another editor. I opened a discussion and am happy to self-revert. I also make sure that I add the links to the scores. ] (]) 1:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::Update: Despite this ANI report and this user's "acknowledgment" of their mistakes, they keep on continuing their editing behavior. This user made , which violates ], as the source did not support their edits, and ], as it turns out that the final standings is very different from their edit, as shown here in . '''<sup>] ] ]</sup>''' 02:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
== IP editor 174.20.131.248 engaging in rants on ] ==


*


*


*


Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for this, or if it's AIV. As this is talk page related and not mainspace, I think here might be better? I'm happy to move it to AIV if that is the place for this however.


:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm reporting {{ipvandal|174.20.131.248}}. This IP has been going on a bit of a rant over at ] in the last ten minutes, see {{diff2|1076736715}}, {{diff2|1076737490}}, {{diff2|1076738006}}, as well as on ] three days ago {{diff2|1076066350}}. All of the posts contain aspersions that Misplaced Pages has been captured by leftists. ] (]) 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{diff2|1076739408|Diff}} of ANI notice. I tried to link the thread but it kept breaking the subst template. ] (]) 17:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::@] thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. ] (]) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Like the now-closed thread up the page, this is a garden-variety troll who is using Misplaced Pages to soapbox. I'd just ignore them unless this becomes a longer-term issue. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 21:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I've blocked for 36 hours for too much trolling. ] &#124; ] 22:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC). ::::Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. ] (]) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: . It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. ] (]) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.
::This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't ] enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. ] (]) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And now that I'm back after having power out for a couple of days due to the storm, I see they've ''continued'' editing. I've blocked for 48 hours, hopefully that will be enough. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


== Caribbean Hindustani ==
== Nelveto and continued POV edits ==
*{{articlelinks|Caribbean Hindustani}}


This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the ] article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, ] 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Nelveto}}
:Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: ] (]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. ] (]) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.
:He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.
:I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. ] (]) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Danny5784 ==
The user made, as of now, 24 edits. They have been warned at least twice, last time in November, that some of their edits are inappropriate, specifically, they push what the see as pro-Ukrainian POV against consensus (replacing Odessa with Odesa etc). I gave them a Ds alert and said that if they continue a block becomes an option. Today, they have chosen to continue . I guess the option needs to be discussed seriously.--] (]) 20:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Danny5784}} does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite ] and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy:
: Also , the current consensus is both Chernobyl and Zelenskyy.--] (]) 20:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
* After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ].
::Blocked. Eastern Europe POV pushers don't need to be humored here. ] (]) 02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
* Danny5784 created ] with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After {{u|Djflem}} wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both ] and ] apparently as ].
Danny5784 also has issues with copyright: they uploaded a large number of now-deleted files on Commons and ], then did ] here, plus using blatantly false non-free content criteria.


With 460 edits over 15 months, Danny5784 is past the point where these can just be dismissed as newbie mistakes. They are a ] editor who is unwilling or unable to follow basic norms such as notability, reliable sourcing, and copyright. Until they demonstrate more maturity, I believe a prohibition from page creation (article, template, and file upload) is needed. ] (]) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
<!--{{hat|1=A wild ] appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}-->
:Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
:Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than ] so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. ] (]) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. ] (]) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. ] (]/]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear {{confirmed}} result.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. ] (]) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Liz}} I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--{{hab}}-->
:::::::No problem, ever, with unarchiving, ]. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:::As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). ] (]) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see the currently closed discussion above at ]. I purposely did not participate in the discussion in the hopes that the editor would learn from that discussion. Alas, they appear not to have. With and , they have once again inserted uncited information into the article after repeated warnings not to, and being warned as per ] and ]. Then there is , once again removing an AfD notice after being warned on their talk page (and I see there is yet another one). In addition, there on ]. Finally, leaving incorrect template warnings on a user's talkpage. They do not appear to show any willingness to understand English WP's rules and guidelines. I think at this point some type of block is warranted. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article ==
:You dont seem to understand it that it is not my problem, ], that you keep talking. Why keep involving me, in[REDACTED] discussion. Now ANI has to answer. ] (]) 04:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Ngancheekean}} when do you mean it's not you're problem? You're responsible for all edits from your account. If someone else is using your account, it will be blocked as ]. Sharing accounts it not allowed. ] (]) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I mostly on chinese history. ] (]) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:::My talkpages is full with his comments. Btw I started writing in[REDACTED] because there is a page about my surname (owned by wikipedia), which created by ] in (25 June 2020)‎‎. I mostly write about historical person of Yan surname since the page information is insufficient. The problem, the pages was vandalised from page to page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{u|LivinAWestLife}} made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. ] (]) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've ]. -- ] (] • she/her) 05:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse block''' - I've tried to engage with the editor, but they can't seem to understand or answer the most basic of questions. ] ] 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:I suspected from their name that this editor might be Malaysian, after noticing TNT asked them if they speak Malay I checked out their user page and found out they do they say are from Malaysia. While they didn't seem to respond very clearly to TNT's question and although it's been a while since I've written anything much in Malay, I wrote a comment to them in Malay trying to explain the situation. (To be clear, I wrote this in Malay myself, it isn't a machine translation although I did use dictionary searches and similar to try and help me remember words or find ones I didn't know.) I'm doubtful it will help, but maybe it will and didn't see any harm in trying. And yes I know they've already lost talk page access but they might still be checking it out and if the problem is really an inability to understand what we're telling them it seemed fair to try and get through to them. (Although it's easily possible their level of Malay is below their level of English.) ] (]) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Revoke TPA ===
::Vandalism is vandalism and is ''not'' funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a ''very'' low tolerance for trolls, ''especially'' in contentious topics. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{atop
:::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
| status =
::::There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. ] (]) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
| result = Done. {{nac}} ] 22:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you ''really'' have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
::Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. ] (]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Couldn't you have just used inspect element? ] (]) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You're taking a ''very'' long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «''Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back''» and there are no consequences? ] (]) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their ]. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. ] (]) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. ] (]) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

== Editor repeatedly reverting edits ==
{{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}}

This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.!
I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away!
For such behavior the editor has been

This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] ,
While i was trying to improve the ] article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per
] where it is clearly mentioned

"''In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.''"

Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand.

I don't know why the editor doesn't understand ] and ] are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! ] (]) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, ],
:First ] is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry@] actually before this, i went on your to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided . ] (]) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's '''your''' action, not theirs. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::They are the one who started removing/reverting repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are . Plese see ] edit history. ] (]) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". ] is a bright line. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They edit in group, while i started a discussion but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on ] but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. ] (]) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the ] for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:] is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a ] sanction is appropriate here. - ] (]) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Yeh, I went to the ] noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my . What do you want to prove through this? ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with ] from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I read over ] discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on ]. Thanks again ] (]) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked.


I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is ] , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent ], ] and and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --] (]) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:I don't know what you're up to, but , I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks ] (]) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq| I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above}} That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --] (]) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::], can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if {{they are|Sokoreq}} using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, {{their|Sokoreq}} own behavior. --] (]) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== Trolling at ] ==
Could someone—anyone—look into ] and come to the completely independent conclusion that their TPA needs revoking? They can hardly write intelligible English—so a CIR problem—or it's deliberate, in which case we're being trolled. Either way, some of our finest, etc., are having their time completely and utterly wasted. ] 16:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC) {{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}}
] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:]? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--] ] 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. ] (]) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Semi-protected now, thanks ] ] (]) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
**{{ping|Isabelle Belato|Acroterion}} Needs talk page access yanked too.--] ] 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
**:Done. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn ==
== CreecregofLife ==
{{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{archive top|result=Nothing to see here. Report relates to events that happened a month ago. —''']''' (]) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)}}
*{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}}
There is a pattern of behavior you folks should really take a look at. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
], so bringing this here. ] and I engaged in an edit war at ], which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for ), ] shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the for the "win", whilst predictably . How is this not ]?


I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at ] and see if anything needs tweaking at ], but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. ] (]) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Diffs? All I see is repair and updating of references. —''']''' (]) 05:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::They’re upset about the discussion over at ]'s talkpage and does not understand ]. Basically trying to steamroll over perceived ideological opponents to get their way. ] (]) 05:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
:::I've restored it to the pre-socking version and {{U|Daniel Case}} has semi-protected the article.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. ] (]) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118) ==
== Block evasion by ] ==


An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].


The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.


{{u|Commonedits}} was by {{u|331dot}} at 12:08, 11 March. Since then, they have made multiple edits whilst logged out to evade the block, per the evidence below.
* First, here they admitted to using a particular IP, note that the IP used to evade the block is in the same /22 as that one -
* Resubmitted a draft that they had been working on earlier, ] :
* making the
]]] 🇺🇦 11:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Mako001}} I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for block evasion, and increased {{noping|Commonedits}}'s block to one week. Courtesy ping to {{ping|331dot}} as I've modified their block -- ] (] • she/her) 11:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Given the hostile remarks by Commonedits at ], where they allege a conspiracy of incompetent and corrupt administrators, I have my doubts that they will refrain from disruptive editing when that block expires. ] (]) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


== Legal threats from InuKishu (who was blocked indefinitely for advertising) ==
{{atop
| status = Handled
| result = by Orangemike. --] (]) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
}}


] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:EDIT: The IP is now <s>banned</s> blocked, with the original IP's <s>ban</s> block extended by another three months. ] (]) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Harassment and personal attacks ==


{{u|Riventree}} called another editor and myself a , said to the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an . ] (]) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but ''indef'' for a user who ''has'', generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked ''once''? ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. ] (]/]) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. ] ] 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: {{tq|'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)}}. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. ] ] 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It looks to me like they understand ''what'' they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the ''why'' (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. ] (]) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Per our own internal classification (e.g. ]/]) it is formally a ], and the article ] is in the {{tl|political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:
::::::*"The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
::::::*"Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
::::::*"When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."
::::::I am not really sure why these sentences would, ''prima facie'', constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:
::... that the ''']''' of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the ] perspective?
:From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.
:I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (]), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far <del>and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet</del>. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. ] (]/]) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. ] (]) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Amended, thanks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|JPxG}} Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. ] ] 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. ] (]/]) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. ] (]/]) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what says:
:::::{{tq|to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:}}
:::::{{tq|''I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.''}}
:::: says:
:::::{{tq|Follow successfully, locate, as in ''I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck''. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” }}
:::: says:
:::::{{tq|If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.}}
:::::{{tq|''She had spent years trying to track down her parents.''}}
:::::{{tq|''I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.''}}
:::::{{tq|''The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.''}}
:::::{{tq|''There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.''}}
::::Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said {{tq|Get this politically divisive ] off the damned front page}} and {{tq|And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.}} Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. ] ] 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says {{tq|"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."}} on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. ] (]) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: {{tq|I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.}} This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Proposal: commute block to topic ban ====
Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator ]) and JPxG's ] action should not stand, but a ] isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.
*'''Support''' as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Lengthen the block if you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to ] ({{diff2|1270933193|1}}, {{diff2|1270933653|2}}). ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. ] (]/]) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? ] ] 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
*:::*: unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the ]. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
*:::* Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in ].
*:::*: Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
*:::*] shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
*:::**Similarly on other talk pages {{tq|Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?}}
*:::*] and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
*:::* Tried to make the article ] more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying {{tq|UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all.}} ].
*:::Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @]'s concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? ] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least ] broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. ] (]) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Proposal: Reinstate indef ====
] has told me to report legal threats here, so I will.
A discussion is needed on this to prevent ] from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.
* '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. ] (]) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' reinstating indef, '''support''' gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --] 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. ] (]/]) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Voorts}} and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. ] (]) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they ''are'' let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --] (]) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I can’t for the life of me explain why the indef was overturned in the first place. The PAs were bad enough, especially when you consider how tame the blurb that instigated them is. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I think it would be better to see what they do after the two-week block and what it would merit, re-indeffing already is a bit premature. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. That was unacceptable, but a first offense, and two weeks is plenty. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. ] (]/]) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::See GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above; this is not a first incident. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and would support defining this as a ]. The outburst was unacceptable on its own, but as it's been shown that it's the latest in a pattern of unacceptable actions constituting harassment, combined with a history of blatantly POV commentary and corresponding edits in article space, this editor should not be editing Misplaced Pages at all. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I think an indef for an editor who has behaved the way they have, historically and recently, will be a positive preventative measure. ] (]) 20:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Anonymous8206 ==
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Inukishu, the banned user has been listing everything that has happened to them "for legal counsel later on.", which I think constitutes a legal threat. They have been indefinitely banned except for on their talk page, so someone should remove their talk page privileges. I don't see the point of notifying them though since they won't be able to edit here anyway. ] (]) 13:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}}
Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: .


They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Inukishu&oldid=1076887898 is the link in case anything changes since making this post. ] (]) 13:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:] policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. ] (]) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: ]. <s>I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.</s> ] (]/]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to ] in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. ] (]/]) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual==
== Ban evasion by HarveyCarter ==
{{atop|result={{NAC}} Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
As the title suggests, this includes:


*{{userlinks|SuvGh}}
*{{rangevandal|86.150.120.0/21}}
::Making personal attacks such as "Enough of explaining r@cist Brits what to do", "you're probably an ignorant British man", and has tried to remove relevant content about 4 times now.


*{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}}
Can we re-block the range ]? Banned ] has been active there. ] (]) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See ].


Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Well, I'm lost. ] 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
:Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't ''currently'' editing it appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a ] attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. ] (]) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked both editors indefinitely. ] <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks ==
== Personal attack ==
{{atop|OP blocked indef by {{u|Bbb23}}. -] (]) 18:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Can you please review the last comment on my Talk page left by an administrator who is calling me "rude" for describing a user's attempt to edit war by "indoctrination"? The user has reversed my edits three times although I provided three sources. The admin described my sources as unreliable when there is no source at all to support the version that the other user reverted to. This has been a constant struggle on Misplaced Pages that certain users want to enforce a certain narrative without the use of any sources and admins still allow them to get away with it citing "consensus" when it is a very difficult thing to gauge and also should not overrule the use of sources. Back to my initial point, the admin's comment is a retaliation for the perceived "attack" that I made which I think is biased and unprofessional. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{re|Mayo890}} You are meant to notify the editors (as it says in red at the top of this page). ] (]) 18:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


{{user|2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64}} I saw an IP making an ] on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and ]. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. ] (]) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::According to https://simshomekitchen.com/about/ , Jen Sim is a "foodie from London, United Kingdom." Could you explain why her blog is considered by you as a reliable source to talk about non-recipes content? ]&nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 18:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:The underlying content dispute seems to concern ]. It would be best discussed at ], and if anyone wants to contest the reliability of cherry-picked online recipes, at ]. I see no personal attack, or anything that needs to be brought here. ] (]) 18:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== Incivility and edit-warring ==
{{atop|After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little ] is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This is concerning user ] (] and ]). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at ] needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me):

Users involved:

{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}

{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}

{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}

{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}

Dates:

20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation.

21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.

22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the ].

26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)

3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase ''"This is your final straw."''

7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: ''"why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism"''. In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.

16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary ''"And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person."'' and also ''"Either stop or I'll keep making edits."'' This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by ].

17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he ''"could not reach out to you Magnolia677"'' (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page.

22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: ''"I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."''

I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.

] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to ]-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::It does seem like this could have gone to ]. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from ]. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello! '''Thelittlefaerie''' speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.
::::I think if you can apologise and agree to not make ] against other editors again, and refrain from ] (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek ].
::::Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.
:::::Thank you,
:::::'''Thelittlefaerie''' ] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page ] (]) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) ] (]) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}
* '''Update''': Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== Swagsgod ==
== Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo ==
{{atop|result={{NAC}} {{u|Swagsgod}} blocked and TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Can ] please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. ] (]) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:Looking into it. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
As every admin is probably aware, topics surrounding the former Communist bloc region are a subject of ], and Horse Eye's Back . Just in case any admin is unaware of the scenario: Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, which Serbia has not recognised, and international recognition is almost right down the middle. In summary, one has to be extremely careful how one writes about this topic because to tip the balance even slightly is a clear ] violation. There are tools in place to help facilitate writing about the subject, and to my knowledge, the most prodigious example is the helpful ]. Back in 2015 (so before I created my account) the subject was discussed by multiple editors. It was decided that the best way to treat the awkward northern frontier of Kosovo was neither to satisfy the Serbian claim of an internal contour (i.e. Kosovo bordering ]) nor to satisfy the independent Kosovo claim (directly bordering ]), but to present "bordering the '''uncontested territory''' of Serbia" which allows readers to draw their own conclusions without coming down on either side. An early example of its attempted removal came , but save for the occasional short-lived reversal by some editors, it has more or less been stable in this condition since . On 8 March 2022, Horse Eye's Back although this was a clear compromise, and blasted the wording right down one of the extreme ends of the POV spectrum. ] objected , then got . On 12 March, ] advised Horse Eye's back of that discussion whereby he drew Horse Eye's Back's attention to the 2015 discussion, but not before Horse Eye's Back had . And finally, Horse Eye's Back has done it again , and that is how the article stands as I make this complaint. I personally engaged in some discussion with Horse Eye's Back, and I particularly invited replies on how to handle the ] problem and how it should be worded, to which the question was dodged several times behind an "]" smokescreen. My last post was a few hours ago . A few hours later, and we have the latest restoration of the NPOV breach. I believe this entire chapter requires administrator attention and action. --] (]) 20:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
::*{{tq| Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God}}
::*{{tq|Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests}}
::etc. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by {{ping|Fram}}). Let me know if I have missed anything. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). ] (]) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Gone. —] (]) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as {{tq|Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis}} was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? ] (]) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? ] (]) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source ==
:Content dispute. See ]. ] (]) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not used to this. I don't think I have been on this page before. I thought it was a behavioural issue for two reasons, the relentlessness with abandon, and the ACDS factor. Are you sure it is definitely Dispute Resolution? --] (]) 20:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption.
Remarkably bad behaviour by HEB who certainly knows there are proper channels to handle a content dispute rather than edit warring. Quite unbelievable to edit away from the status quo, have this questioned by three editors and then suggest . I also thought was quite sneaky. It was made shortly after Edin balgarin, the main editor disputing HEB's edit, was indeffed (for unrelated disruptive editing) with a handwave to the talk page which in no way showed support for the edit. The attempt at a boomerang below is not a good sign either. On the heels of , I think a good trouting and a topic ban might be in order. ] (]) 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:While I was aware of this discussion, I had little interest in getting involved in it, as I had the aforementioned negative interaction with HEB. I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior. The user sees dissent as a personal attack; and this retaliatory 'Request boomerang' subsection below is highly indicative of that. Note that HEB cherry-picks comments of others but in no way apologizes for their own, "''suboptimal''" comments and behavior (to quote {{ping|Floquenbeam}}). One such instance is coincidence; twice is enemy action. - ] (]) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:: If you would like to "cherry-pick" comments of mine from ] which you feel are suboptimal you can do so, I would appreciate knowing what there you think I can improve on. Also please use the singular "they" when referring to me, my gender is undisclosed. ] (]) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Nope, not playing your game of distraction, HEB. However, please feel free to point out where I have, in this conversation, applied a gender to you. Additionally, others have fully addressed your 'suboptimal' interactions with them. I've only pointed out where your comments in our previous interaction triggered an unconstructive interaction. Just like this completely ''different'' situation with an entirely ''different'' group of people. What's the common factor in the friction from both conversations?
:::The answer you might be struggling with is facing you in the mirror, pal. - ] (]) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::::"I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior." The common thread seems to be editors completely ignoring ] in favor of their own opinions and then escalating to WP:ANI when they can't win a policy based argument. ] (]) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


== 142.190.62.131 ==
: Just FYI but I was the one reverting to the status quo, it had been steady from 2 February to 8 March when it was changed by Edin balgarin (who was indeffed for *related* disruptive editing BTW, the case is above this one) and I partially reverted Edin less than twenty minutes later. Not really sure why Coldtrack is omitting that part of the narrative. ] (]) 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::Edin was blocked following a bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage (admins feel free to correct me). Unless I am completely misunderstanding the content dispute here, this is not related to Kosovo's borders. ] (]) 00:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::A bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage in a conversation discussing this exact issue at ], the conversation can be found at ]. ] (]) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::::If someone commits a murder in a post office it doesn't make them guilty of mail fraud. This is a good opportunity to show some contrition and self-reflection...just some friendly advice. ] (]) 00:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Their rant was a two-parter, half was posted on a personal talk page and half was posted on the article talk page, if they hadn't been indeffed for the one they probably would have been sanctioned for the other. If someone commits a murder in a post office but is killed by responding officers and were also committing mail fraud they will never be charged for mail fraud, but that doesn't make them innocent. You can either advocate for a topic ban (what topic exactly?) or you can offer friendly advice, its kind of hard to do both. ] (]) 00:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. ] (]) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Request boomerang ===
: IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ], then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is ]. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. ] (]) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society."


== IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles ==
"Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody that knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even known in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag."
{{atop|result=This situation looks resolved. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
An IP range user ({{vandal|2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321}}) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including ]s). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information .


"You don't get to appropriate this policy to violate delicate NPOV matters. That would firstly be in breach of ] and of ]." #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. ] (]) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


Tried notifying them for what that's worth. ] (]) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate. Al Jazeera did not waste time here as within three days of the declaration of independence, they put out a report titled "Europe's Newest Country", filled with the usual vexed anti-Serbian rhetoric."


* '''Could I please get some help here?''' IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using {{IP user|2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07}}
"No. You have had this explained to you a gazillion times now. NPOV is about reflecting conflicting viewpoints. You need to know what RS is and is not. RS is about choosing which of two diametrically opposed claims to treat as factual (e.g. round earth, supported by science vs flat earth, supported by pseudo-science). RS is not a trump card to oust NPOV. If it were, then there would be no such policy as NPOV."
::I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is {{confirmed}} block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been for disruption.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Abusive user ==
"If you wish to dodge questions then this conversation is finished ... You are basically saying "RS says this so we should discard MNPOV". That is appropriating one policy to conceal the elephant in the room, which is not how this project works. Any more WEIGHT violations to the article and sidestepping of longstanding consensus, and you will be reported. Bye."
{{atop|1=Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Moved from the ]. Courtesy link: {{user|Opolito}}, filed by {{user|Shaggydan}}, moved by ] (]) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? ] (]) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"The conversation with Horse Eye's Back has gone as far as it can go. Three editors including you have now spoken to him and he clings onto the tassels of "Reliable Sources" out of sheer desperation to push a slanted viewpoint. So if he removes "uncontested territory" again, I will report him and in doing so, will alert you to the discussion."


When someone is trying to dismiss all contemporary reliable sources as unreliable for a given space I think its pretty clear that they shouldn't be editing in that space. ] (]) 20:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC) :This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. ] (]|]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Shaggydan}} - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at , I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. ]&thinsp;] 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Shaggydan}} Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? ] (]) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with ''actual'' personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.}} You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? ] (]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
:I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many ]s are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
:Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
:He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
:I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
:Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
:29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
:On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
:These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
:I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information ==
::Boomerang for what? I haven't touched the article since God knows when. I can revert you right now and lock you out of restoring your partisan revision for almost 24 hours, except I haven't. So where does Boomerang come into play? You've argued with three editors. --] (]) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|93.204.189.212}}
::: I should specify, the request is either for a topic ban regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans or a general ] ban given your complete dismissal of mainstream WP:RS as "Russophobic" and for "pre-existing advocacy." ] (]) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA}}
:::::I'll allow the admins to deal with it. Your singular point you raised after it was debunked time after time after time did not mean you had to play around with the article. I've kept off it, and nothing has prevented you from doing so while seeking a third opinion or making a request for comment ''inter alia''. --] (]) 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06}}


Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on ] (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user . After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--] ] 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>Looks like the boomerang took a while to double back (see ]).</s> ] 04:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|El_C}} How are these two incidents related? ] (]) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I didn't say they were, but the OP is indef blocked all the same. ] 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Apologies if I am being obtuse here but ] is the OP of this discussion. It appears you blocked a user called Caltraser5 as a result of the discussion you linked to. I just don't see the connection. It doesn't appear Coldtrack has been blocked? ] (]) 04:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Oh shit. I can't read. Sorry! ] 04:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
* This is indeed a content dispute, but I am concerned by edits like which basically state that Kosovo (a state recognised by over half the UN) has the same position as Somaliland or Transnistria (states recognised by precisely zero other countries). That's obviously a POV issue, but I'd say it's even more a competence one (and I agree that someone whose worldview is that skewed should probably keep away from editing in that area). ] 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


:Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. ] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
===RfC time===

== Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP ==
{{atop {{atop
| result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
| status =
| result = RFC launched at ]. <small>(''But not just because El C said so!'' {{=D}})</small> ] 19:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:How dare thou! I am the leader of the BBC, still. 🍔 ] 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
}} }}


*I'll mandate an RfC as an ] action, with the burden being on the side of ''inclusion.'' I don't care if it's longstanding, it reads awkwardly because of its irredentism. So, if you can gain the consensus to include: {{tq|It is bordered by <u>''the uncontested part of the territory of''</u> ] to the north }}, well, I'd be surprised, but okay. Will ]. To clarify: until an RfC is closed with consensus to ''include,'' that passage is prohibited. ] 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:*{{u|El_C}} The wording was introduced after a long informal discussion by several editors with a variety of viewpoints in 2015, ], and has been continuously present in the article ever since. It's as solid consensus as one can get. I was initially opposed to it as well since it reads awkwardly, but unqualified "borders Serbia" is unacceptable from NPOV standpoint. Quoting {{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} from that discussion: {{tq|Whether you like it or not, and whether it reflects the facts on the ground or not, Kosovo is still considered as de jure part of Serbia by a significant number of international actors, so there's no way around the fact that Misplaced Pages will have to remain neutral about this in its wording, as a matter of principle.}}, and your accusations of irredentism are out of line. Nobody is edit-warring to ''include'' that wording; it is Horse Eyes' Back edit-warring to ''remove'' it. You're seriously overreaching here. ] (]) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::* I'm not sure why we're tying ourselves in knots trying to find the least convoluted wording for a sentence that probably doesn't need to be there at all. Why not simply replace the sentence with a map? ] 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::* I will just reuse Fut. Perf's answer from the same discussion: {{tq|I don't think that would be a good idea. "X borders on Y" sentences are pretty standard in our country articles, for good reason – they provide an easily understandable geographic reference frame for readers unfamiliar with the region (and speaking of maps, the one we are currently showing at the top of the infobox is so small you can hardly see Kosovo anyway, let alone what other countries it borders on). I dislike the idea of sacrificing a piece of plain, uncontroversially useful factual information for our readers just because some entrenched Misplaced Pages editors keep reading non-existing and quite unrelated POV issues into one bit of wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)}}. ] (]) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} Well, run the RfC nonetheless. The preceding sentence already reads: {{tq|Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008, and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 97 member states of the United Nations. It is bordered by Serbia }} Again, get affirmative consensus if you wish to reiterate that distinction in the next sentence, too. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough. As for the map: ] is about the same size as Kosovo (i.e. half an ]), and it resolves its tininess on the continental map well enough (like Israel), I think, so have a look-see at those examples. ] 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:Per ], you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. ] (]/]) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks, I've made a note of that. ] (]) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== revoke TPA for ]? ==
::], it is not out of line for me to view that ''addition'' as irredentism, because it tells the reader the same thing the previous sentence just did. And it reads awkwardly. Edit warring is edit warring, be it on the side of inclusion or exclusion. A major part of ] is that it allows uninvolved admins to, sometime, skirt the line between content and conduct (i.e. normally indeed an over-reach). Now, whether that action ''crosses'' that line would be subject to appeal in the usual venues. Hope that clears things up. ] 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
{{atop
:::That's not ''skirting'' the line, that's a blatant involvement in favor of one side of a content dispute. ]: {{tq|To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom}}. While indeed {{tq|Any uninvolved administrator may impose... prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)}}, your interpretation of "except when consensus exists" amounts to "but I do not like it". What do you consider "usual venue"? AN? Anyway, consider it appealed. ] (]) 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
| result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The venues for appeals are: yes, ] by the community, or ] by a quorum of uninvovled admins, or ] by the Committee itself. ] 13:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
}}
::::I dislike that passage not because I have a ''content'' preference. I dislike it because it reads awkwardly and, arguably, restates the sentence that precedes it. I have no opinion on any changes that qualify (or not)... whatever in relation to describing the borders, in text or visually, with a better map. ] 13:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::Wait, what? Since when are admins supposed to make content choices in their administrative capacity? You're being helpful like a bull in a china shop. {{tq|A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough}} – since ''when'' we need a RfC for every wording, and every single discussion needs to be closed? In that discussion, ''nobody'' (except the last poster, ''Let's keep it neutral'' supported unqualified "borders Serbia" wording that you're trying to impose now; I announced I'll change it to "uncontested territory" wording, nobody objected, and it was in the article ever since HEB's incursion. I'm not in love with that wording either, but the onus to open a RfC is on the one(s) advocating the change. ] (]) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. ] ] 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just like the ACDS ]<s>fC</s> I mandated for Kiev→] name change, I will not be closing this RfC. If you want to see that ''consensus for inclusion'' realized per ], argue your case on the RfC, not here. ] 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations ==
===Content issues aside===
Putting the content issues (on which I’m agnostic) aside, there is still to my mind an issue with HEB’s recent conduct and edit warring on this article in particular. This was an uncivil and unhelpful way to go about something that clearly had pushback at the local level. ] (]) 14:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:], I looked at that and had found subpar conduct from multiple parties, but opted against sanctions in the end in favour of the RfC. I suppose you could try to seek admin intervention just against HEB alone, to be carried by a different admin, here, in a new subsection (for some reason). ] 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


== Block review: ] ==
{{resolved|account locked}}
{{userlinks|Rokifacet}}
I've blocked without tags and not notifying to avoid feeding the trolls, but they're clearly not here. Anyone know whose sock this might be? First edit is to critique a Jimmy Wales edit, and second set is to Russia/Ukraine Talk as a forum. Happy to have my block overturned if consensus is it's inappropriate, but nothing rang as a new editor here, or one who is going to edit collaboratively. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 23:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:That looks like ]. ] (]) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks. Now obviously socking as an IP which hopefully helps. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 01:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*Handled at ] (thanks {{u|TonyBallioni}}, this can be archived. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


Dear admins,
== Unusually nasty and unfair personal attack ==
I am reaching out to request a review of the recent deletions of articles related to the Astana platform. While I have already contacted the administrator responsible for the deletions, I believe a third-party review would ensure fairness and transparency. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter.
I understand that concerns have been raised about alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts, particularly regarding my interest in Randa Kassis and related topics. I would like to clarify that my interest in Randa Kassis stems from her international prominence, especially during the period when her meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and her role in the Astana platform gained significant media coverage. This explains the connection between my edits to her page and other related articles.
My contributions have focused solely on adding reliable references and improving information with a neutral tone, as reflected in the edit history. Additionally, the articles in question were edited by multiple users and administrators over time, highlighting a shared interest in Syria’s geopolitical significance and its key figures. The collaborative nature of these edits reflects diverse perspectives rather than coordinated efforts.
If there is concrete evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, I kindly request that it be presented. I fully support Misplaced Pages’s principles of transparency and remain committed to addressing any legitimate concerns.


It is also worth noting that the articles about Randa Kassis and Fabien Baussart include critical and controversial perspectives. At no point have I attempted to remove or alter critical content or promote a specific narrative. My sole intent has been to ensure accuracy and neutrality.
I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would take a look at recent discussion at ] and act accordingly. As I sit watching the horrors of the Russian attack on Ukraine and figuratively yelling at the TV in disgust, I am being accused of supporting Russian war crimes for acting to prevent vandalism of ]. ] (]) 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
* (shakes his head) Not the first time some editor has decided that Putin's war is an excuse to unleash nasty personal attacks at anyone thwarting their vandalizing of Russian articles. I wonder if there just needs to be blocks of these people for the duration of the war. ] 04:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time.
:{{ec}} Yikes! Blocked indef with TPA disabled. ] 04:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Thank you, {{u|El C}}. ] (]) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


:] is what you are looking for. This noticeboard doesn't handle reviews of recent deletions of articles. And I'm not seeing any reports about "alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts", on this noticeboard or on your talk page, so it's unclear how we can help you in that regard.]] 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry you had to go through that bizarre toxic insanity. ] 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::To clarify what this is about, please see ] - 21:22 UTC 5 Jan 2025 version , and 14:00 UTC 22 Jan 2025 version . My apologies for not using <nowiki>{{Template:Diff}}</nowiki>, it's a bit too maths-y for me. ] (]) 🦘 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|El C}}, prompt service here is part of my generous compensation package. More correctly, it is the ''only'' significant part of my compensation package, except for an occasional barnstar, and my own sense of ]. There have also been a couple of t-shirts that I no longer wear in public, since nobody ever says anything about them. ] (]) 06:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::For added context, see ], from where the user was sent here. -- ] (]) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} FWIW, '''Endorse block'''. Caltraser5's wholly uninsightfull UTRS ticket has been closed. --<b>] ]</b> 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. ] (]) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


:Thank you for your reply; I greatly appreciate it. While I’m not experienced with templates, I like to occasionally make contributions when I can.
Persistent cross wiki vandalism targeting Cugowski family – a well known family of Polish musicians. The range belongs to a mobile operator so I suggest a long-term partial block of possibility of editing of ]. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:The admin “Squirrel Conspiracy” merged the page for the Astana Platform into the Randa Kassis page. I am unsure who can help me review this deletion. If you check my contributions, you’ll see that I tried reaching out to the admin but received no response. I also requested a review to address and resolve the misunderstanding, but I haven’t had any luck so far.
:] ''']'''&#32;for a period of '''2 years''', after which the page will be automatically unprotected.<!-- Template:RFPP#semi --> Too much collateral for that range. ] 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner ] (]) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|El_C}} A partial block of that IP range from editing that one article would cause ''less'' collateral damage than semi-protecting the article, which also blocks people using other IP ranges and newly registered accounts, as well as that range. Or have I misunderstood something? ] (]) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::That appears to be normal editing under ] rather than administrative action. As such it is a content dispute and off-topic here. Take it up on the talk page of the article. —] (]) 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, no, sort of. No, because look at the page's history. For a long, long time, the ''only'' unconfirmed accounts to edit that page are of that LTA. I think the latest p-block was of ], but they obviously just go on to using another range for that weird ''idée fixe'' of theirs. Sort of because it does look like I conflated ] () with ] — thanks for calling attention to it! Yes? ] 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I have been pinged to this discussion, so here's my two cents. I support (which I originally proposed) and by {{ping|The Squirrel Conspiracy}}. The same could perhaps be done with the ] : that group did exist but from the few sources I could find it seems to have been pretty negligible and to have evaporated pretty quickly. ] ''may'' warrant an article but I agree that in its latest form the page was pretty much "unfixable". Mentions of the peace talks in Astana should be developed in ], and it should of course specified that the so-called Astana process was sponsored by Russia and by the opposition's High negotiation committee.
:::I can't tell if it was the work of a paid editor, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person of several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages, make her look more important than she actually was within the Syrian opposition, obfuscate her ties to Russia and perhaps even embellish her professional credentials. The ] page and all mentions of her and her role in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian opposition and the peace talks endorsed by Russia need to be cleaned up and closely monitored. ] (]) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus. ==
== <del>Life threat</del> Hostility coming from an editor, TrangaBellam ==


I’d like to bring attention to the actions of ], who has been systematically removing entire external links sections from several hobby-related articles, including ], ], and others. While they cite ] and reliability concerns, the external links guideline (WP:EL) explicitly permits some links that may not meet reliability standards but are still useful to readers (e.g., learning resources from knowledgeable sources). Other users oppose these actions but this user is not willing to compromise.
I am not a political editor, just a film article editor. I stumbled upon a recently released film article on Misplaced Pages and saw several biased and "unusual edits" for a film article. So I thought to correct the bias by adding NPOV (positive and negative) and balancing it out especially the reception section which had several problems but was reverted and then I started a discussion. Several other film editors have noticed this bias in that article but two editors have been reverting everyone as if they ], calling names to others. See the discussion ]. When I removed an unsourced claim in the article, and started a discussion to discuss the bias, {{u|TrangaBellam}} replies with '''''' - clearly accepting their bias. When I opened a thread on ], they attacked me calling me POV pusher (I write film articles for god sakes) and a political stooge of current government (equalizing me with a Nazi) with a threat saying "they have their attention on me" like they "have marked me" or something. This is a clear case of Intimidation and <del>possible life danger</del> hostility. I don't feel safe on this site. Administrators need to intervene here.] &#124; ] 08:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*Can you please cite the diffs where I {{tq|equalized you with a Nazi}} ''or'' held you to be {{tq|a political stooge of the current government}} ''or'' wrote either of the two phrases in quotes? TIA, ] (]) 09:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*:I came across ] from yesterday which may be of relevance in deciding the course of action. ] (]) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*::You clearly called me a You called me . The wiki articles about this word makes it clear what the editors who wrote mean by Hindutva. You can write anything on articles and is not called names but I question only two things on talk pages (the two edits in last years on talk pages just as a reader which made you "watch me" with suspicion) made you assume my POV pushing ability? Make it make sense? ] &#124; ] 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*::Thank you for bringing this because it proved that the discussion was going nowhere with you guys and your constant intimidation and condescending tone made me to not get into the debate further until I saw in the morning that other editors are also questioning your edits. Me asking to erase yesterday's edits on talk pages especially show how I cannot take your constant intimidation and humiliation on these made up political issues on film articles, which is not good for my mental health and for[REDACTED] guidelines.] &#124; ] 09:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::Once again, I request that you provide diffs where I issued a {{tq|threat for your life}} rather than write walls of text. ] (]) 09:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{user|Krish!}} You either need to provide diffs of TrangaBellam making a "life threat"...or stop spouting such nonsense. – ].].] 09:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''NOTE''': This editor's ] and hostile attitide and disregard for other POVs and Misplaced Pages rules was but {{u|TrangaBellam}} continued their . How are we supposed to edit film articles with this kind of disregard for ] and full of toxicity?] This editor is dismissing different POVs and is not ready for consensus. Administrators need to act ASAP. ] &#124; ] 09:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*:: Saying that they have their eyes on them is <del>huge life threat</del> intimidation and this editor's continued toxic and hostile attitude towards me and few other editors is a proof.] &#124; ] 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*:::You are claiming that your life was threatened, you need to show the diff where that was done, or withdraw that accusation. ] (]) 09:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*::: is the only diff you have provided (at RSN) in relation to a threat. There is no threat whatsoever. I'm willing to assume AGF and say this is down to a language issue, if the baseless accusations stop. – ].].] 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*::::On the help desk, several editors carefully explained to ] that they should not alter comments once others had responded (with the exception of their own user talk page): refactoring by scoring through words, possibly adding a new time stamp, was recommended. Now they have changed the title in an extremely unhelpful way with edits like this. Krish!'s ] of "wanting to have <s>the</s> their cake and eat it" <s>are</s> is not helpful. ] (]) 10:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)<small>"''Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.''" ] (]) 10:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::::::Sorry, it was a mistake and I have corrected it by striking it. I did not intend to mislead. I have corrected the title too.] &#124; ] 10:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


Here are some examples of their removals:
*'''Comment''' - While I do not want to comment on the hostility between the two editors - the great problem here is with the film article '']'', which has been highly unstable over the past few days. TrangaBellam has reverted the article to their own preferred version numerous times, with no consensus and clear opposition on the talk page. That's what should matter here and what I would ask admins to take note of. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 10:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

*:{{reply|Shshshsh}} ANI does not deal with content disputes. – ].].] 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*::{{reply|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} No, this isn't contect dispute - it's edit warring and user misconduct, which I believe ANI should deal with. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 10:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

*:DIFFS are required at ANI esp. since you accuse me of commiting {{tq|countless reverts}}, which if true, ought be sufficient grounds for imposing a block.
*:I have made two reverts ( and ), of which the first one was procedural: it restored the status-quo version to stop an edit-war between Krish! and Tayi Arajakate. Besides these two, I have in one instance of obvious vandalism. That's all. ] (]) 10:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

:::Not true. I was not edit warring, I started a discussion after reverting a version with unsourced claims but was again reverted.] &#124; ] 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Shshshsh}} edit warring can be dealt with at ]. As for user conduct, I have yet to see any evidence of anything that requires administrator attention. And just to note, Krish called on you for backup at the article's talk page. So all this "I'm an impartial observer working towards peace and harmony" gig doesn't quite wash. – ].].] 10:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::Seriously? I always had disagreements with Shahid. I only invited him because he is the only Indian film editor that has been active. So your claim is not true. Like, me, Shahid has also written several film articles and is one the only few editors active whom I know. I invited Kailash too and he did not support me. So this is not true.] &#124; ] 10:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
These sections are standard for hobby-related articles, and the wholesale removals appear to go against community norms. Despite discussions with other editors (most recent discussion here: ]), they have continued this behavior without consensus.
::::::Have you read ]? ] (]) 10:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::::{{reply|TrangaBellam}} - I have. The first sentence says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That's what Krish did. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 10:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I’ve already notified the user about this discussion. Input from administrators or the broader community would be appreciated to address this recurring issue.
::::{{reply|Squared.Circle.Boxing}} Krish wrote - "Would you like to present your points?" and I put a disclaimer saying that I had been invited to comment. I've had my biggest arguments with Krish (see ]). I really am an impartial observer. And "working towards peace and harmony" is not at all my point - I want the article to be in neutral shape, and I let all of them know that I think all opinions should be presented. I honestly do not get your hostility either. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 10:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

::::::* TrangBellam has been hostile and intimidating towards us, not ready for consensus, with a "my way or the highway" approach, not ready to listen other POVs, not adhering to MOS of other film articles, constant reverting and to the point even said "take me to ANI - I don't care" and we are accused of being trying to corner him?] &#124; ] 10:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you,
*'''Comment''' I urge {{U|Squared.Circle.Boxing}}, {{U|331dot}} and {{U|Mathsci}} to provide pointers on how to continue conversation at . <u>Whatever</u> I write is held as personal attack, dismissed without engagement, and it is repetitively claimed that I am making {{pronoun|Krish!|obj}} feel unsafe. Tbh, this is resembling a not-so-clever strategy to stonewall discussions. ] (]) 10:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
JD Gale <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Perhaps ] can help. ] (]) 10:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:I found one of the discussions you refer to: for interested readers—] <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''].''' Krish writes above "How are we supposed to edit film articles with this kind of disregard for Civility and full of toxicity? ... Administrators need to act ASAP." I agree, and have therefore page-blocked Krish for two months from '']'' for tendentious editing (, removing a line from the lead with a false claim that it is not supported in the article, is a good example, out of quite a few), disregard for civility, false claims (I don't know if come from a place of incompetence, or of disingenuousness), and violations of ]. ] &#124; ] 11:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
::And pertaining to that discussion and article, Dronebogus removed.
::So this is why that editor said "TAKE ME TO ANI- IDON'T CARE". Says a lot about behind the scenes CANVASSING. This and Kautilya3 work together with that third editor but are not accused of CANVASSING but I invited the film editors I know of and gets blocked? Nothing more to know about the state of Misplaced Pages. You claim I am hostile but that user was the one being hostile towards me. He was the one breaking WP guidelines.{{U|Squared.Circle.Boxing}}, {{U|331dot}} and {{U|Mathsci}}.] &#124; ] 11:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::And at Origami, these were removed.
::{{reply|Bishonen}} you have your reasons, and I find that Krish is too emotional about the subject, but I suggest that you oberve the article's history, particularly on the part of the other users, especially Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam. The former, in particular, added yesterday parts which were downright false (). I wasn't willing to engage in an edit war, but they were later reverted by an admin (, ). As I said on the talk page, I personally trust {{u|Tayi Arajakate}} to maintain the article in good shape and neutrality. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 11:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::And at Knitting, these were removed.]] 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Shshshsh}} Just to be clear, I am not "emotional" about the subject. I just feel the MOS that film articles have on WP is not being applied to this article. I have written so many film articles yet nobody has ganged up like this for such a silly thing. I don't know how the hostile and OWN attitude of Kautilya3 and Trangabellam is not questionable but I am being accused of the things these two editors did. It's bizzare.] &#124; ] 11:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:On Origami, they removed links showing ] talking about and performing Origami folding despite him being one of the worlds leading theorists on Origami. On Knitting, they removed links to the trade associated for knitting yarn manufacturers which is a common link on a subject, a link to the UIllinois LibGuide that has librarian curated links to in-depth research material about knitting, and all the categories and authority control templates. They did go back and add back the categories it but the first swipe shows carelessness. Everytime I see Dronebogus at ANI, it seems to be for taking some guideline and going hard core enforcing it without any nuance or care. {{ping|Floquenbeam}} summed it up best: "]" <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::], re "{{tq|they were later reverted by an admin}}": administrators put their trousers on one leg at a time just like other people. ] &#124; ] 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
::I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. ] (]) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Reply|Bishonen}} - of course, but what is your point? What about the actual content of what I've said? Did you actually look at the user's edits? Now, I'm not saying you should employ the same course of action here, but can you think of a solution to such problematic behaviour? (if you think you could be available to keep an eye on the article, that will be good enough). ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 11:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Understood and apologies if I made it appear you were commenting on this behavior. I was wondering where I saw DB's name before and I finally put two and two together with the previous XFD discussion and other ANI discussions. I saw your quote and thought, at least in my mind, applied to this situation and I could not state it better. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My point is that, while admins have special tools ''as'' admins, they have no special authority when they ''edit'' an article. Note also that if they edit a particular article, they're not allowed to act as admins on it. You want to discuss Kautilya's editing now? I'm sorry, I'm not up for researching that at this time, I have some urgent stuff going on in real life. Maybe later. (This page seems to have some updating issues. I know {{u|RegentsPark}} posted before me and before Ravenswing, but it's not showing up. Can somebody fix this, please?) ] &#124; ] 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
: These should be reverted, per {{u|sp}} and especially Floquenbeam's comment. ] (]) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{reply|Bishonen}} okay, I get it - no problem. Thank you for the reply, ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 12:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
::In '''Links to be considered''', ] lists {{tq|Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.}} Dronebogus thinks that line is and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. ]&nbsp;] 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree with Bishonen's page block, the diff of the removal of content (provided by Bishonen) from the lead is concerning (almost the exact words are used in the article body). And then there is the section on ] that is equally unsupported by diffs as is this complaint. Bottom line, if you're going to charge into a divisive, controversial topic, don't come running to ANI crying about neutrality unless you can back it up with solid evidence. Because, if you don't have the evidence, you end up looking like the POV editor.--] <small>(])</small> 12:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:This looks like a content issue that should be addressed on the talk-pages of the respective articles. If I've followed correctly, I believe the timeline is:
* As an uninvolved editor, I don't care much for ]'s angry tone. But oh my freaking heavens, ]'s reaction is so far over the top my eyes are popping. Is he trolling us, or does he really, truly think that the edit of "Though this is the last article, that I am editing, before taking a from S. Asian discourse, I have no intentions of ceding ground to long-idle POV pushers; your edits (, ] etc.) across the last few years have not escaped my attention" constitutes a threat against his life, so that -- as he states above -- he no longer feels safe on Misplaced Pages? Seriously? If it wasn't for Krish's solid contribution history, I'd suggest that someone on that touchy a hair trigger is a poor fit for Misplaced Pages.<p>Beyond that, I really don't care for "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of inquiries. "Take it to ANI, I don't care" does not admit bias. It admits nothing at all, and claiming otherwise is unwarranted and objectionable. Never mind that ''Krish started this in the first place.'' It was Krish who first threatened to "raise this concern to the administrators." It was Krish who first claimed bias, and finished with "This is highly suspicious." ("Suspicious" of what, may I ask?) Frankly, I find ]'s behavior less objectionable than Krish's. Krish is not being "accused of things others did." He's being accused of his own hyperbole and incivility. Bishonen made the right call. ] 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:*Jan 8: Dronebogus with the comment {{tq|how about none}}
* '''Comment''' - Funny to see that I have been mentioned multiple times (even sanctions asked), but never pinged even once! This is the ultimate POV attacking I have seen in all my years. For the record, I haven't deleted anybody's content on ] (yet). I just wrote my own content, every word of which was reliably sourced. These people apparently don't like what the reliable sources say. -- ] (]) 17:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:*Jan 10: JD Gale with no edit description. Dronebogus then with the edit description {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by JD Gale (talk): No rationale provided for restoring a huge link farm of seemingly WP:OWNed personal opinion}}
* As an uninvolved editor, from what I read and understand, TrangaBellam never did such a thing as threatening a life!! I was bemused to read this report. Still no idea where they got the idea, but it's good to start that it's stricken off. Perhaps ], as you said on your talk page that this whole thing got to you and that you won't appeal the page block, I'd advise taking some time off to clear off your head, and resume working on a different article that interests you. All of us need to recharge at some point. Hope it helps! — ] (] · ] · ]) 19:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:*Jan 16: JD Gale on the article talk page.
:*Jan 22: JD Gale made ] referencing the Knitting and Origami pages. Dronebogus then removed the external links in those articles ( ).
:*Jan 23: Dronebogus on the External links talk page asking for clarification. Around 7 hours later, JD Gale .
:As it stands, I'm just seeing a content dispute and a difference in interpretation of EL guidelines that is appropriately migrating to the EL talk page for clarification. Is there some context I'm missing here? ] (]) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

== User:Adillia ==

{{Userlinks|Aidillia}}

I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on ] but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like ] and ], where the file are uploaded in ] and abided ] but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did ].

Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

=== User:D.18th ===
{{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|D.18th}}

<s>This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore ].</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

<s>:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism.</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::], you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will show up as <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{done}}, thanks! <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
=== Resumption ===
I've unarchived this because they're resumed edit warring with each other at ]/]. Repeating my comment from above to give it more attention: '''I propose that D.18th and Aidillia are ]'''. ] ] 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:], I think you should notify both editors of your action on ANI, especially as this discussion might have an impact on them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Done. ] ] 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Both files were created by Aidillia and I don't know why they need to do that. I uploaded a new version at <code>Study Group poster.png</code> but then I was reverted without a valid reason then Aidillia uploaded a redundant file so they'll have an ].{{pb}}Another file they keep messing up is ], I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets ], I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing ]. ] ] 08:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh again? ]? I left you a valid reason in the file! or maybe you don't want to understand it! As I already did some research, maybe it's considered as the main poster, as the main trailer is already out; (because there are no ] that say it's the main poster) that's why I reverted it back after that. But I want to create a new file instead of renaming it. You're the one who ignore my ] again and again over a small thing. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::"''I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets ], I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT.''"
::That situation is the situation that u did to me before!
::* ]
::* ]
::I also meets WP:IMAGERES! But u keep reverting my edits!? What is your PROBLEM? <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Are you that interested in being engaged in ] over a ridiculous thing? You've been here for many years, but why are you wasting your time warring over ridiculous things? Please stop making it complicated. Just ignore it but why are you fight it until the end? I've been blocked by you twice. What's your problem? <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please also stop your behaviour, ], like what u did to someone on ]. Stop uploading for your prefered version! It's so unnecessary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*'''support''', but also a p-block from file space might be needed since both seem to be using it as a trophy case. ] ] 13:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support two-way IBAN''' for now. As a bystander, this situation has devolved into a prolonged ], possibly including ], with increasingly absurd interactions between both parties beyond just edit warring on filespace, including nominating each other's "creations" for deletion which seems like a retaliatory behaviour. Furthermore, I fail to understand the obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft as both parties exhibited in their contributions when neither constitutes ownership or a noteworthy achievement on Misplaced Pages. If a two-way IBAN is ineffective, this effectively constitutes ] and possibly ] hence I believe that a block should be enforced against the first party to violate the ban. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*: The problems aren't limited to file space. See ]. ] ] 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

===Resumption again===
This appears to be a resumption of disruptive behavior, this time occurring on draftspace. I believe there is a potential case of HOUNDING by Aidillia against D.18th. Furthermore, this ownership and uncollaborative behavior, which I previously described as an "{{tq|obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft}}" is evident once again. Given this is the third instance here on this topic, could we finally have some conclusions and actions taken? Also noting that the previous discussion was auto-archived due to inactivity without official administrative actions pertaining to IBAN being logged into ].

On Draft:Please Stop Drinking/Draft:Please Quit Drinking.

* ] – @] created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to ].
* ] – @] created Draft:Please Quit Drinking pointing to the same mainspace.
* ] – Aidillia converted their draft to a skeleton outline.
* ] – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
* ] – D.18th reverted the changes stating "{{tq|This is the literal translation of the Korean title}}".
* ] – Aidillia posted onto D.18th's talk page asking to D.18th's to "{{tq|delete Draft:Please Stop Drinking}}" so that they could move their created draft.
* ] – Aidillia cut-paste the content (]) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
* ] – Aidillia moved D.18th's draft to ].
* ] – Aidillia moved their draft to Draft:Please Stop Drinking.

On Draft:Typhoon Company/Draft:Typhoon Boss

* ] – D.18th created Draft:Typhoon Company pointing to ].
* ] – Aidillia created Draft:Typhoon Boss with content of "{{tq|Typhoon Boss}}".
* ] – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
* ] – D.18th reverted Aidillia changes.
* ] – Aidillia reverted D.18th changes.
* ] – Aidillia redirect their draft to D.18th's draft.
* ] – Aidillia cut-paste the content (]) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
* ] – D.18th overwrited the cut-paste content from their draft.
* ] – Aidillia added external link with edit summary of "{{tq|Even HanCinema link also said it is Typhoon Boss}}".
* ] – Aidillia added redirect templates to their draft with edit summary of "{{tq|sopspspwpwppwpwpwpwppwpwpeppeowoow}}".

'''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Seems like Aidillia is intentionally harassing D18 trying to antagonize them into another incident. This shows a pattern of resorting to weird tactics in order to be the “first” to create something.
:This discussion has been sitting on ANI for ''weeks'' with no real measures being taken. An interaction ban needs to be enacted '''ASAP''', with possibly an additional block on page creation and/or page moves if this behaviour is seen to be chronic. ] (]) 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 ] (]) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Your point? ]] 21:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Both editors site-blocked for one week''' for clear escalation and disruption on many pages. I agree that they should be two-way ] once their blocks expire, and also suggest they be ] from creating duplicates of any other users' drafts. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Good block, but also there’s a case to be made for an INDEF. Both editors are a time sink and net negative beyond the incessant sniping. ] ] 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Can I see some of the net negative editing diffs I looked through d18s contributed other than the edit warring it seemed fine mostly ]] 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Unlikely, both are productive editors and there’s no evidence showing this has spread further than issues with each other. Could’ve been avoided with an IBAN. ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IMO logging their IBANs in ] before their 1-week blocks expire is sufficient for now. I don't believe their contributions are entirely unproductive, excluding their interactions with each other. An indefinite block may be considered if the IBAN proves to be ineffective, which we can revisit at that time. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''IBAN''' OMG. If ever there was a case for an iban, this is it. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*Yeah. I hadn't been closely following this since stumbling onto the upload war at ] (I think after actioning a speedy deletion request on the image it replaced?), but I was struck even then by how ] it was on both users' parts. Cursory skim through the above diffs hasn't done a thing to convince me otherwise. —] 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* Support IBAN and indef ban of both editors from filespace to avoid continued disruption there. ] (]/]) 21:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

==]==
Can someone please revoke TPA? Thanks. <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> 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

== 37.47.76.95 - personal attacks ==
{{atop|result=IP account blocked for a week. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{user|37.47.76.95}} - self-explanatory from ]. Whoever they are, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'll add I'm active in a few sockpuppet investigations and a few semi-controversial discussions especiallly around the California fires and Gulf of Mexico so it wouldn't shock me too much if this was a sock or LOUT because this is clearly targeted towards me in particular. Maybe a CU will be needed if this continues. ] (]) 16:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
== Tsans2 adding back FICTREFs, non-RS, BLOGs, and OR ==


{{ping|Tsans2}} has been adding back information to ] which I have removed for policy or ] reasons without justifying themselves. For examples:
* (also ); the user
*I removed part of the lede (, , , , , ]) or moved some info: , ); the used has added back those information six times without justification (, , , , , , )
*I , after ]; .
* When confronted with those problems in their editing methods, : {{tq|disagree. it's just your own view what is relevant and what is not}}; : {{tq|], ]. You have also added back all the non-reliable or unrelated references I had removed without justifying yourself.}} The user has ]: {{tq|you didn't notice I add a lot of sources for each sentence. reliable sources, not blogs as you can think. I reverted your vandalism again}}, and {{tq|I double checked and added some basic info with iron reliable sources}}. Note: as the edit history of ] proves, the user has either not double-checked anything, or is clearly trying to vandalise.


{{userlinks|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}}<br>
I could give other examples if necessary, but collecting those takes time. {{ping|Jr8825}} who seems to have followed this article for a while may be able to provide some more insight into Tsans2's behaviour.
<br>For the records, ]. ] (]) 10:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:
:Thanks for the ping. I haven't been keeping the closest eye on this, but I stumbled across ] early after creation and had a brief scan of potential sources, as well as providing relevant clean-up tags. I was contemplating an AfD nomination before another editor initiated it. I've been cautious so far and have refrained from the !voting at the AfD as I think there's scope for a similar article based on academic sources, but having glanced at the AfD and article several times from a distance I agree there are definitely judgement issues which may verge on ] problems, particularly given the edit warring, AN thread and non-] accusations of vandalism. Content-wise, the main issues seem to me to be repeated instances of ] and ]. Most of the current sources are in Cyrillic so I can't verify them, but I do see a lot of Ukrainian web addresses and sites such as ], which are unlikely to be appropriate or academic. There were also previously YouTube links. I haven't looked closely enough to check whether named political scientists are supported by the relevant cites. This could be a ] issue and I see Tsans2 is a relatively new editor. I don't feel I'm in a position to judge the best solution, but navigating our policies can be particularly tricky around emotive topics, so perhaps a talk page reminder/advice/warning of the importance of these policies – and that repeated good-faith mistakes still risk a topic ban – would be helpful? ] • ] 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
* ] warning about using AI chatbot.
::{{ping|Jr8825}} Thanks for your input. Articles in other languages can be checked using Google translate if needed. ] is to me a reliable source, but the problem is that the user uses FICTREFs constantly.
* Me warning .
::Tsan2 has been reverted numerous times by me with explanations every time; I also ] and ] (as I put in my first message). This was to no avail. Therefore, I doubt one more {{tq|reminder/advice/warning}} would do anything.
::Most of the article is a mishmash of claims of Putin's governement being Fascist, historical Russian Fascism, and the alleged Raschism ideology; it seems all this confusion relies on the ''purely OR'' definition of Russian Fascism/Raschism/Russicism being both allegedly the practical disposition of ] and an alleged sub-ideology; this is all Tsan2's doings despite my efforts. The user also constantly uses FICTREFs and OR; for example "Term 'rashist' has became widely used by policital and military establishment of Ukraine, as well by journalist, influencers, bloggers, etc." () has three sources and none contain this information. On WP ru, on the ] article, . ] (]) 12:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The user has , once again ignoring all my criticism and not providing any real justification. I think enough is enough. {{ping|Drmies}} a few days ago you thanked me for an edit on this article. Therefore, my hopes are that by chance you have more or less followed the edit history of this article and can therefore make a decision concerning my complaint. In any case, I would be grateful if any admin was to put an end to Tsan2's vandalism. The user so far ] despite my attempts, so I think a sanction is needed. ] (]) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*I am afraid that user Veverve edit war to remove ''sourced'' content about Russian Neo-Nazi, for example (note edit summary). Yes, many of the sources are on the Ukrainian language. But it does not disqualify them. ] (]) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
*:{{ping|My very best wishes}}
*:Let us review each of those sources I have removed in this revert. I had provided a rationale in my edit summaries for each of those removals; since you accuse me, I will have to do it again here for those. The subject of the article, while vague, appears to be Russian Fascism/Raschism, an alleged specific form of ], just like ], ] or ] are a form of ].
*:*: despite the title, no mention of the topic, only numerous Conservative to far-right topics discussed here and there without any coherence between the topics. No mention of what the source is supposed to support in the article: "considered by many to be the political ideology and social practice of the ruling regime of ] in the ]. This interpretation is based on the ideas of the 'special civilizational mission' of the ], Moscow as the third Rome"
*:* "" : brief mentions of Fascism in Russia, the article is about ]; no mention of the "expansionism" in the article, only that "For Ziuganov, ''Stalinism'' shorn of its Marxist-Leninist trappings, infused with nationalist and statist sentiments, rendered politically homogeneous, 'organic' in character (Ziuganov, 1997 p. 85), developmental in intent, and expansionist in practice, constitutes a political ideal." (p. 11; my emphasis), and that "What seems evident is that a plausible case can be made for the presence of Fascist elements in the political ideology of some of the major opponents of the Yeltsin administration in post-Soviet Russia. That those elements constitute the grounds for identifying its proponents as 'right-wing extremists' is, at least initially, counterintuitive." (p. 12)
*:* "": the article states some people have called ] ]; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism, simply that "Fascist regimes have charismatic dictators with hyper-masculine personality cults. These regimes generally evince a hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines, and imperialist projects. Fascist regimes are hugely popular—usually because the charismatic leader appeals to broad sectors of the population. Putin and his Russia fit the bill perfectly."
*:* "": the article states ] is almost ]; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism
*:* "": the article states ] is ]; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism
*:* "": copy-paste of an "opinion expressed in a post on Facebook by historian, chairman of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Council Oleksandr Sych", not a notable nor reliable opinion although it does discuss the topic
*:* "", "", "": absolutely no mention of the topic or anything related to political ideology, it simply describes how the "Z" symbol is used with no mention of Fascism. ''The Times'' article states: "Russians around the world have been daubing the white letter on black backgrounds to denote support for their army fighting in Ukraine. The adoption of the 'Z' as a symbolic expression of support is viewed as particularly controversial as it was originally daubed on tanks attacking Ukrainian cities. Police in Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic, said they would fine drivers featuring it on their cars. Czech police will treat the 'Z' symbol in the same way as the swastika." tengrinews.kz reports that in Kazakhstan the symbols "Z" and "O" are forbidden to be displayed on cars. So those source support most of the information in the line they are in front of, but no link is made, either in the WP article or in the newpaper articles, between the "Z" and Russian Fascism/Raschism.
*:*I will not check the sources supporting what is written later about the Z symbol, as the symbol's link to the alleged Raschism has no been proved; those parts should simply be removed
*:As you can see, I have good reasons for removing those sources along with what they allegedly supported. ] (]) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::*This is not the place to discuss sources, but anyone can follow your links and see what they are about (I think most of them are on the subject). More important, ] is a notable subject, and such page has every right to exist, not as a diambing., but as a regular page. Would not you agree? ] (]) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:::*:You have accused me at an ANI of POV-pushing and ], so I was forced to justify my edits.
:::*:I agree that Fascism in Russia - the History and tendencies of Fascism in the Russian geographical territory - is a notable subject. The Russian Fascism/Raschism - again, the alleged sub-ideology the way e.g. ] is - seems not to be a notable topic, which is the reason why WP ru has been - rightly so in my (Veverve) opinion - refusing the article's creation for 12 years ]. ] (]) 23:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:
== Long-term vandalism by IP since September 2021 ==
*.
*.
*.


I have asked three times for ''specific details'' about an edit----but was ignored, while this editor continued their mostly error-filled editing. This may be a user with limited English, using AI. Thanks! ] (]) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive IP (new to old order)
:I would support a temp block warning him in several different languages (my gripe when dealing with users like this) if he continues after the first block an indef block would suffice <br><small>Off topic but ] is straight gold I’m gagging lol</small> ]] 18:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|List of IPs}}
:To explain my warning a little, I think Mr. Accuracy Specialist is using AI because of edits like ], ], ] – the links have the URL parameter {{code|?utm_source{{=}}chatgpt.com}} and the cited websites do not back up what was written. He has also made suspiciously well written, but unsourced, edits to sea snails that are likely LLMs: ], ], ].
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:F29A:1:4948:2F0A:61D:17DC}}
:I was actually debating reporting Mr. Accuracy Specialist to SPI a few days earlier because I thought he was a sockpuppet of {{IPuser|202.57.44.130}}, but I held off because I wasn't sure about it. The IP was previously reported at ] for making edits to Philippine film articles. ] mentions there is possible COI - maybe they would like to provide input here? Here's the gist of what I was going to write:
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:F29A:1:6CD5:3665:2641:E973}}
:* 202.57.44.130 makes tens of edits to articles related to ] in a short period of time, then stops at 13:35, January 18, 2025 (UTC) and has not edited again as of this moment.
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:C57D:1:70A0:713E:3763:8CCF}}
:** Mr. Accuracy Specialist is created five hours later, then continues the same pattern of making dozens of edits in short bursts.
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:C57D:1:E051:8E02:B10C:6A1F}}
:* After a hundred minor edits (to build credibility?), Mr. Accuracy Specialist also starts to edit the same articles related to GMA Pictures.
* {{IPlinks|2001:268:920E:FEEB:9A80:36F0:5F17:A8F}}
:**
* {{IPlinks|106.171.42.177}}
:** On ] the two accounts have made identical changes: first ], then ].
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:F693:1:B5FE:E5C5:6CFE:7427}}
:** On ] the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: ], then ].
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:F693:1:D26:89CB:2E50:EB7B}}
:Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. ] (]) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:E606:1:91E8:ECDC:3B11:4733}}
::I just noticed {{IPuser|139.135.241.10}} has also made a dozen edits to ] with edit summaries very similar to 202.57.44.130. For example, the same threats: ] vs. ].
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:E606:1:9539:44F4:C7C5:C259}}
::See also the , where there is lots of overlap. ] (]) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:FE01:1:B42A:B096:8DCE:5503}}
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:FE01:1:E152:F1CD:C611:E14A}}
* {{IPlinks|106.131.24.24}}
* {{IPlinks|106.171.43.226}}
* {{IPlinks|106.171.47.47}}
* {{IPlinks|106.131.65.224}}
* {{IPlinks|106.131.67.27}}
* {{IPlinks|2001:268:9002:F116:8400:4937:EDA1:B97D}}
* {{IPlinks|2001:268:9001:5E73:D58C:9B95:413E:6800}}
* {{IPlinks|2001:268:9007:5CAF:2378:899A:BC3F:13E3}}
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:DBE0:1:11F2:F812:6313:743A}}
* {{IPlinks|2001:268:9009:100:CB93:E6AC:38B:287B}}
* {{IPlinks|240F:7A:F3A3:1:1DC2:23CC:7246:1B3}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Articles involved
* ] – Adding nonsense about krill, squid, penguin, hunting, birds which isn't relevant to article.
* ] – Same as above.
* ] – Same as above.
* ] – Same as above.
* ] – Same as above.
* ] – adding WikiProject Birds when article isn't related to such.
* ] – adding WikiProject Birds when article isn't related to such.
* ] – In October 2021; not affected recently. Same nonsense.


== System gaming by NandivadaHungama ==
I don't see them stopping anytime soon with the latest edits made today consisting of the same nonsense, hence requesting to range block ] and ] which consists of the above disruptive IP that are active in 2022. If possible, also ] in case they hopped to that range, I'm fine the decision to restrict 106.131.0.0/16 range from editing the articles involved since this range hasn't been used in 2022 yet to disrupt the articles involved. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


I believe {{user2|NandivadaHungama}} is ] per ] by editing their user page 500 times and thus should have extended-confirmed rights removed.--''']'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>] 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive WP:SOAPBOX editing by User:ABetterWorld89 ==
:{{done}}.--] (]) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:ThePurgatori ==


In summary: user makes many problematic edits to many articles with no source and edit summary, continues doing so despite being warned multiple times, and refuses to respond to complaints nor engage in discussion.


, ] has been (and is still) unilaterally adding ] (as well as including mentions of "possible dwarf planet" in lede sentences and "p-DP" in infoboxes) to an alarmingly high number (over 300!) of trans-Neptunian object (TNO) articles, even those which are obviously too small to qualify as a dwarf planet or have never been called a possible dwarf planet in the scientific literature . For every single one of their edits, they gave no edit summary justifying their category additions. From what I've seen with ThePurgatori's edits, they either don't give a source for the "possible dwarf planet" category or they cite only , which I see as unreliable and ]-pushing for the reasons I've given ].
Over the past week or so, ] has been repeatedly performing disruptive ] edits to articles regarding tennis tournaments, specifically the ]. Their aim was to add back flags for Russian and Belarusian players. The reason as to why they were removed, as explained in ], was due to a ruling by the governing body of tennis that players from Russia and Belarus were permitted to play, but their tennis organisations had been suspended from membership so players are unable to play with their country's flag by their name. A few editors noted this on ]; they simply replied with comments attacking the editors that were warning them. Almost all of ABetterWorld89's edits have been ], with some examples of the disruptive editing , , and .


Adjacent to mass-categorizing TNO articles, ThePurgatori has also been mass-adding TNOs to ] and transcluding that template to TNO articles they have mass-categorized with ]. The template includes a comment that explicitly says that "Only those TNOs whose absolute magnitudes ≤ +4.3, are not Haumeids, and have diameter ≥ 400 km should be included in this template." ThePurgatori and added numerous objects to the template such as ], which obviously not over 400 km in diameter. Furthermore, they arbitrarily changed the absolute magnitude (H) limit from +4.3 to +5.5 in with no justification given. ThePurgatori's edits to ] have since been reverted, but the template is still inappropriately transcluded to many TNO articles.
I am not sure if this qualifies as straight vandalism, which is why I have added it to the noticeboard (please let me know if this is better somewhere else), but am hoping this editor can be looked into more urgently as it is becoming rather tedious having to see hundreds of edits being reverted. ] (]) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


Outside of mass-editing articles, ThePurgatori has been (and is still) frequently making unreferenced additions to ], ], and multiple lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects.
:And {{they are|ABetterWorld89}} being abusive see ] —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
* For ], ThePurgatori has (and are still doing) repeatedly added TNOs to resonances without a source---some of their additions turn out to be contradictory to established sources stated in the article (Deep Ecliptic Survey), as ] as stated in his warning on ThePurgatori's talk page. ThePurgatori never replied to Renerpho's warning and continued adding unreferenced (and incorrect) additions to ] like in . In that particular edit, ThePurgatori added ] to the article. Looking at the edit history of that particular entry, I see that from "classical" to "4:7 resonant?" (again, no edit summary and no reason given), seemingly citing Johnston's archive (which is not the Deep Ecliptic Survey source specified in the ] article). The reference to Johnston's archive in that edit links to the wrong page, but they intended to link to which makes the "4:7 resonant?" claim. However, that claim is not reliable; . Renerpho has warned ThePurgatori about this again; no response from ThePurgatori.
::Blocked. ] (]) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
* For ], ThePurgatori has also made numerous unreferenced additions (now reverted). In , ThePurgatori entirely missed that point and includes unmeasured TNOs with guesstimated diameters and fabricates error bars. No edit summary and no source given.
* For lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects (split up by year), ThePurgatori is changing the diameter values of TNOs in each list without explanation or source for how they got these numbers. They also link their created articles in these lists. To give an example, .


I've notified ThePurgatori about my concerns about their edits on their talk page and asked them to stop their edits until they respond to my concerns. They did not respond, but following my first request. For some of their reverts, they did include an edit summary too (for example, ), but never gave any meaningful explanation to why they added that category in the first place. I asked ThePurgatori on their talk page to respond again, several more times. Also no response, and by , ThePurgatori had already moved on from removing ] from TNO articles and continued editing numerous TNO articles, keeping the ] category I was complaining about (like in ). And after I explained to them what TNOs to not categorize as "possible dwarf planets",
== Continual re-adding of unsourced material ==


I also notified ThePurgatori and asked them to comment in two talk page discussions: ] questioning the (un)reliability of the list website ThePurgatori has used to justify their dwarf planet claims, and ] discussing how the "possible dwarf planet category" should be applied. No response from ThePurgatori either. Just today (at 19:14, 23 January 2025 UTC), from ] and ], both complaining about ThePurgatori's unreferenced edits. No response, and ThePurgatori
I've alerted ] of both ] and ], and they continue to simply re-add uncited material. Normally, you might see this type of behavior from someone with 30-100 edits, but this user has almost 10,000. Now as per ], I'm asking action be taken against this editor. Not sure what type of action, perhaps a week block to get the point across? Here's the of the page in question. First I moved it to draft, in the hopes that referencing would be provided. It was moved back the same day without improvement. So I removed the uncited material. It was added back. I again removed the uncited material, this time citing BURDEN and DDE. I should have taken this to ANI days ago, but I keep hoping that they will get it. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


When I first encountered this user, I thought prodding them multiple times via talk page would get them to do something to address their problematic edits, but at this point it's become a futile waste of time. Frankly, it's very frustrating. I've been hesitant about going to WP:ANI over this since I felt that would be going too far, but it's all I can do now.
==Inappropriate behavior of Axxxion==


I am inviting {{ping|ThePurgatori}}, the subject of this complaint, and {{ping|Renerpho|ArkHyena}} who have also been dealing with this user. ] <span style="font-size:85%">(] • ])</span> 21:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
] reverted me on ]: , . For some reason, he thinks he gets to decide what's important or not.


:Thanks for the tag, {{u|Nrco0e}}. I was reverting some of ThePurgatori's early changes to ], and although I got no reply to my message on their talk page, the next few changes they made there seemed to comply with what I told them. I then stopped checking, but I am seeing now that they just seem to ignore it in their latest edits. The list of resonant objects on that page should be handled with care, as such data becomes basically useless once you start mixing different sources. Resonances need to be confirmed computationally, and Buie is the only one who does that reliably. I'll have a look at a couple of the recent changes. It may be best to just reset that article to what it looked like a few weeks ago. Which is a great way to waste both my time, and theirs! :-(
I decided to not revert him more so there isn't an edit war, but he left an insultive comment against American officials, all because I added their assessment of Russia's campaign . When I warned him about his behavior, .
:{{re|ThePurgatori}} If you read this, please start communicating now! It's great that you want to work on those articles, but if you don't interact with other users, chances are you'll continue causing a mess! ] (]) 21:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Regarding my suggestion to roll back ], that already happened shortly before I wrote that comment, by {{u|ArkHyena}} (reverting 29 edits spanning about a month). ThePurgatori has since edited the article twice, although I checked that particular addition and it is not problematic, following the standard reference (Buie) we have specified. Either they got lucky, or they've noticed the complaints. ] (]) 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Anyway you can tl;dr this? ] (]/]) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::ThePurgatori continues to edit astronomy-related articles, and even though they've been warned that their edits are not constructive and against consensus, they remain unresponsive and continue to cause a mess. ] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I am tagging {{u|Kwamikagami}}, who has been involved in the discussion at ], and who has just removed that category from a lot of articles. -- Maybe you have some insights into how to best approach this? ] (]) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::First, let's splash a scary-looking warning template on their talk page. If they still don't engage, I'd give them a warning block of a few days to really get their attention, leaving them with the ability to respond on talk pages . Once/if they engage, maybe the problems can be resolved. ] (]) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I went ahead and gave them ]. ] (]) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:It should be noted that there is a major ongoing discussion at ]'s talk page over how to handle candidate dwarf planets ]. ThePurgatori has been directed to participate in the discussion by Nrco0e, though they have yet to participate. Specifics aside, it was agreed to state on ] that objects included were >700 km in diameter; soon after, ThePurgatori changed the statement to say ''600'' km with little explanation. It appears that ThePurgatori is intent on imposing a standard across astronomy articles that was not agreed upon by other users, despite several attempts at communicating with them. I am not sure what measures should be taken to resolve this, but this behavior is not constructive. ]] (it/its) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:In their edits to ] from today, they've not only changed the diameters without sufficient explanation (as already pointed out), but have also changed the object count in a strange way. The article's source (a combination of and ) lists 39 objects in that category. They are saying in the article lede that there are 38. Their list includes 40. This may be an honest mistake, but I am getting tired of trying to clean up behind them. We do require some ]. ] (]) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::The diameters in ] have also been changed in 3 edits since 16 January, without an edit summary (similarly to the case of the 2010 list already mentioned), and I cannot follow where their numbers come from. ] (]) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but they have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for sockpuppetry. Not sure how relevant that is for us. ] (]) 01:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


== Disruptive editor won't stop ==
I ask the admins that they at least tell him to be civil, because my words won't have any affect on him. ] (]) 01:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{User2|Cbls1911}} has made numerous disruptive edits to US political pages. I have reverted a few but there are too many. Could someone please look into their contributions? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small>


:Sorry. I forgot to sign it. Was typing in a rush. ] ] 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:], RE: {{tq|an american moron′s opinion is of no relevance here}} () — who? You know unnamed official? Also, ''American'' always in uppercase. Please don't make it weird. Eep. ] 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
::Hello, ]. When you post a complaint on a noticeboard, you have to provide diffs/edits that show examples of what the problem is. If editors have to go hunting to find out what you are referring to, it's unlikely that this post will get a response. You have to present evidence to support your claim that there is disruptive editing going on. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Cbls1911}} appears to be changing ordinal indicators to incorrect forms, such as ], even after ]. Not blocking yet, but I likely will if they continue with this. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:44, 24 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    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

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

    This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at WP:AN if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against User:Jaozinhoanaozinho. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Misplaced Pages community. MolecularPilot 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    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)
    Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 21 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)
    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)

    Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.

    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

    • Oppose all. I would have voted Option B, but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the spectrum, and as a neurodivergent myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to DragonofBatley. You're welcome! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Proposal: Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)
    • Prefer the less stringent option A because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on Trafford, all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. Rupples (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      "Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with Holme Lacy and Dawley Town Hall. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. DragonofBatley (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring WP:ROPE, I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - SchroCat (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      @SchroCat at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion

    • I think I would be happier if:
    1. there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
    2. I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB prove to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). PamD 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @KJP1 and Cremastra: Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.|  – Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, before posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.
    Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
    I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community consensus to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
    I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Est. 2021 He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. PamD 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      • That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      @KJP1, I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too Sensory overload for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but WP:CONSENSUS. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.
    The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with structure while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe structure to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I encouraged KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.
    I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?
    They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.
    Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.
    TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Blue-Sonnet list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed there's User:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB. Cremastra (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Cremastra Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @DragonofBatley - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Blue-Sonnet - That would be really helpful, particularly your perspective on how best to help User:DragonofBatley with the reviewing task. As we've not been able to bottom-out the restriction wording yet, I'm going to take Voorts' advice and get DragonofBatley going on some reviewing. My intended approach was to suggest that they take, say fifteen articles to start: five churches, five places , five railway stations. (these cover about 95% of all of the articles created). Mark these on the table as "DoB Review". Then, have a careful re-read of the editing advice that Cremastra/PamD and others have put on his Talkpage. Then, thinking about what we are reviewing for:
    • Sources - do they really VERIFY the content, or are they just a mention of the name, sometimes not the right name?
    • Sources - do they add up to "Significant coverage in Reliable Sources", so that the article really is NOTABLE? Here, significant is very important, three quick mentions of a place don't add up to significant coverage.
    • Sources - if they don't, what other options are there? Here, it would be really good for DragonofBatley to look at the suggested actions other editors have made in the table; REVISE (with new sources)/MERGE/RE-DIRECT/send to AfD.
    • Sources - if they do, are any other revisions/clean-ups required?
    make what they think are suitable changes, record them on the Table, and pick up another. And take them SLOWLY! When 15 are done, flag it on the Table Talkpage and we can have a look. I'll post this on the article Talkpage and we can see if it works for DragonofBatley. I'm fine, of course, with amendments /alternatives to this if he, you or others think there's a better way forward. KJP1 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    That sounds good. In the interest of keeping this discussion moving towards a consensus, I'd like to check the current temperature of opinion. It sounds to me like there has been a favorable reaction to having a resolution that emphasizes structure. But before I propose anything, do any editors still prefer to have minimal restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 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.
    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 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) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 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)
    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)
    Citation bot has not been approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at User:Citation bot § Bot approval. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 19 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)
    The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 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)
    The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future

    I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
    1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.
    2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.
    3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?
    Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.
    2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.
    3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. jolielover♥talk 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I accept your apology. jolielover♥talk 07:17, 19 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)

    Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you absolutely agree with isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, sorry. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)
      I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
      Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
      BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
      the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
      AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
      Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 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[REDACTED] 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. Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. 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 from ESG and its affiliates 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)

    I looked at Earth System Governance Project last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics written 73% of the article, in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.

    I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.

    Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
    FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
    FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
    If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
    Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
    Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community. This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    did report to WP:COI/N Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:COI/N put this back into our court. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile

    I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its direct affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from citing the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?
    By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on opposition to SRM research (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).
    SRM is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)
    I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those grey areas while editing the solar radiation modification article as mentioned above by User:North8000. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the solar radiation modification article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "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").
    Oh and should the section on my profile page where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the topic ban, you can add it to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being a pioneer in opposing SRM research is sourced... to ETC Group itself). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a small set of exemptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.
    For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. EMsmile (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at Talk:Solar radiation modification violated WP:PAYTALK quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
    Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I tried to make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.
    Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."
    I believe my edits for the solar radiation modification article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page on the topic of ESG and its affiliates. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a symptom of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like this at SRM and this at Frank Biermann (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    (involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before). To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Femke, I've modified the Frank Biermann article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.
    I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the Earth System Governance Project article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the solar radiation modification article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page here. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a topic ban or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like Solar radiation management. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.
    At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a edit request to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      They are confirmed (below). North8000 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 WP:TOMATs long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support as proposer and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support While I do believe that EMS has made some positive contributions, they have also made some egregious errors. If this was not a situation of PE or COI, then at most we'd probably consider a voluntary ban, but given the PE/COI concerns, once you've lost the trust of the community, it is going to be extremely difficult to overcome that cloud. When doing PE/COI work one must be extremely carefully not to make any questionable or promotional edits, they must be 100% defendable, and what we've seen here is that there are multiple instances where that is absolutely not the case. It is a difficult choice because there is a mountain on good work, lots of history and many examples of following procedures and presuming good faith. As I mentioned early on, this might be a case of sealioning, where we've got a civil contributor who is still pushing for a specific POV. These are always difficult. But in looking back at specific edits, and even by EMS own admission, that mistakes were made, and the threshold for when we loose trust and faith in a PE has been exceeded. And while I'd hate to mess with someones livelihood and income, it does not appear that is EMS' primary income, and thus I think that it is appropriate that this ban also extend to any other PE works now and in the future. TiggerJay (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'll be honest that without the COI element I'd not be seeking any sort of sanction bigger than a trout. However I take the COI part very seriously and that's the locus of my concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Agreed! TiggerJay (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Voluntary restrictions

    @EMsmile: Just clarifying

    • When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
    • Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?

    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
    • To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
    • The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the solar radiation modification article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per WP:CRIT it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? EMsmile (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the ESGP website in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. EMsmile (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    That takes care of everything I asked about. I did a lot of work with perhaps wiki's most prominent PE (CorporateM) prominent because they had high visibility discussions all over the place on the whole idea and how to do it best/right. Maybe it's emblematic of the challenges that they are mostly gone now. Plus several others. Answering your question I know that there are lots of ways, (some are really backed up partly because most people don't know how to do a requested edit well) but what worked was just putting the requested edit on the article's talk page. Feel free to ping me there if you wish. The common mistake with requested edits to to not make it explicit. Say exactly what would be taken out and exactly what would be put in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)
    Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, This complaint is not about the content directly. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • There have been numerous edits to the Aubrey Plaza article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
    • Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family.
      • The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP 94.63.205.236. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
      • @Sundayclose: Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
      • During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, 74.12.250.57, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, 2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
      • The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
      • On 10 January, @Religião, Política e Futebol: made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
      • Another IP, 2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
      • On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
      • On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
      • Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
      • On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
      • Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
      • I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
    • In regards to the mention of Baena's suicide, this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
      • @DiaMali: did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
      • Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
      • The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when @Ibeaa: removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
      • On 7 January, IP 2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196 adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
      • The next user to re-add the info was @ZanderAlbatraz1145:, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
      • The IP 2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8 removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
      • @Sundayclose: reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
      • Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
      • Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing committed suicide for the first time in this edit, which IP 50.71.82.63 fixed. Diff:
      • Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information five times each, no edit reasons in sight.
        • Zander: (above 1), 2, 3, 4, 5
        • Ibeaa: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
      • I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
      • Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
      • On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
      • Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
      • Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
      • Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is accurate and properly sourced. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the Jeff Baena article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
      • Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
      • Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. Archive.
        • I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
      • After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
      • I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
      • Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem vital enough to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:
    This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at WP:ANEW or a request for page protection at WP:RFP would be more suitable than ANI. Liz 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to acknowledge the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given there's basically nothing on the talk page about any of this, I'd say some full-protection (or pblocks on the editors in question) for a short time may be in order. People need to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than just trying to shoehorn it into the article, and we may have to force the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would have to agree, the most we've got from the users I am concerned about is one who thinks they're above discussion, and one who thinks they're above explanation. The other user involved who was already blocked at least showed some awareness. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Repeated copyvios by Manannan67

    Manannan67 has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (2020, 2020, a "final warning" in 2021 from Moneytrees, 2023, 2023), most recently from me, when I discovered a copyright violation they placed on Mariana de Jesús Torres. The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did remove one early warning from the talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to Anglo-Saxon mission which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. Manannan67 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. Manannan67 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    So, the information you added to the article, which had to be revdeled as a clear copyright violation, is something you're now claiming you have no recollection of? — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Naniwoofg

    Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been the subject of a complaint at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines#User:Naniwoofg for issues involving images and WP:IDNHT. Finally posting this here so some sort of action could be taken per the comments at the aforementioned section. Note that said complaint includes refusal to respond to warnings and related stuff. Borgenland (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Can we get a follow-up on this? @Naniwoofg has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on Pulilan article, which I partially fixed. Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the Pulilan Church before the 2019 renovation. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewMisplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion, maybe more)

    The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see Russo-Ukrainian_War#Background, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4).

    The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the Formula_one pages and even had raised the issue here (old link), with no visible actions following.

    Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg

    They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.

    Other examples can be seen from commons:Special:Contributions/Cherkash, such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: example 1, example 2

    The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, United Nations General Assembly resolution A/73/L.47, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4.

    I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. Unas964 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the User talk page, e.g. about normalising separatist states, and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in the corresponding topic.
    I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via de facto statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often replicated by other contributors, which I cannot even comment on. Unas964 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
    The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).
    I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that Unas964 (talk · contribs) should adhere to WP:AGF while Cherkash (talk · contribs) needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at the section raised concerning their edits.-- Ponyo 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. Unas964 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their de facto territories in out articles. De jure, there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. De jure, the Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the de facto state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, de jure there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Simonm223: Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their de facto state. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a fact that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.
    Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
    As a corollary it is in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @Cherkash - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @Unas964 has seriously failed to assume good faith by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Simonm223: I don't have the terms backward there. I literally stated that De jure, there's no Taiwan, and also what I meant for facts, the de facto state of the world. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires competence. // and no, it is not a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine, as de jure the Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union, as I had already wrote, because de jure the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had de facto. Do better. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. CMD (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and Misplaced Pages:AGF. In theory, that does not align with Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT, since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the Russo-Ukrainian_War the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. Unas964 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration Unas964 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is fast reaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We also have WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. here). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the Khmer Rouge terror, Tiananmen Square massacre, Holocaust and 9/11 attacks by some de facto laws. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only Holodomor, the genocide of Crimean Tatars and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. Asharshylyk). That renders de facto maps a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
    Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. Unas964 (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    de facto laws? You're way too confused. de jure (Latin for 'by (some country's) law') is the total opposite of de facto (Latin for 'by facts, in reality'). That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, Unas964? Liz 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (WP:RUSUKR,Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some consensus or de facto bodrers pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
      If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. Unas964 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm a bit concerned that Unas964 has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes continuing to argue about the map, calling a warning from another editor regarding WP:CANVAS "pro-Russian attacks." this whole thing at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to WP:RGW was reverted with an edit summary of pro-Russian spam deleted - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. Unas964 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal - short duration block for Unas964

    I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to WP:AGF and that is replete with WP:NPA violations. They have a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to help them understand concepts such as WP:RGW of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically this whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your proposal only enhances the pro-Russian stance and if enforced will serve as evidence that the Ukrainian (and according to the International Law) point of view is censored on Misplaced Pages, also making a precedent against Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT. This is harmful for the entire community that might thus be considered as anti-Ukrainian in general. Unas964 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh do stop. I've been trying to be nice to you and all you've done in response is insult me repeatedly. This isn't twitter. Stop acting like it is. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    support indef per the doubling down above of the Battleground Mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    User talk page access, Wiseguy012

    I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. Liz 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Blocked user WiseGuy012 is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at Talk:Tagine and that they continued there as a sock account, Friend0113, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? Largoplazo (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello, Largoplazo,
    There is no User:WiseGuy012 account. Did you mean someone else? Liz 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wiseguy012, lower g. CMD (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. Liz 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. Beeblebrox 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. Largoplazo (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Still misuse of talk page for spamming. -Lemonaka 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. Liz 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Caste-based disruption

    HistorianAlferedo has engaged in contentious WP:BATTLEGROUND style editing in the WP:CASTE related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in Rajput POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as WP:RAJ (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:

    • , , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
    • : clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
    • , , , , : POV caste-based insertions
    • , : POV caste-based removals

    This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a WP:CASTE t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . Gotitbro (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Gotitbro, you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. Liz 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    HistorianAlferedo, I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. Liz 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay @Liz. Please have a look at pages: Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq and Firuz Shah Tughlaq, I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@Gotitbro just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by User:SerChevalerie

    I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with SerChevalerie, I had to take this to ANI.

    To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.

    Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from Goa. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In WP:Inclusionist and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on.

    From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to WP:3O we reached a consensus after several days of discussion.

    Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as Julião Menezes as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles.

    When I had nominated his article Goa Revolution Day for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to WhatsApp. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me.

    SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly Gerald Pereira and a suspected COI paid editing on article like Subodh Kerkar. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see

    He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here (Redacted). I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.

    When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have WP:OCD relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article J. C. Almeida. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.

    I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed WP:Sanctions on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get WP:Outed or doxxed by him as we both are from Goa, India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. Rejoy(talk) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.

    "During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS."

    In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
    If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided WP:HOUNDING. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
    I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. Mlkj (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. -Lemonaka 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits

    Indeffed by Canterbury Tail EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. Liz 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?

    The user in question is relatively new. (Yes, an early edit stated she had a previous account, but she used it for roughly one day in December 2024 before losing her password, and she had no warnings at all on the account, so abuse of multiple accounts does not apply here.

    With her new account, she quickly received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including:

    I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I concede her point that, generally speaking, men in the world have done and continue to do pretty crappy things to women. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs, and IMO, some of her edits are even going counter to the viewpoint she holds. I also know that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social platform, and I worry that her behaviour, unchecked, will result in her crossing a line that gets her blocked, where an admin, regardless of gender, has to stop the disruption.

    I'd like somebody to reach out to her to give her some advice before it gets to that point, and—while I generally think that any editor can do any job on Misplaced Pages regardless of gender—I think this a situation where a non-male or cisfemale administrator should be the one to make the contact. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was going to suggest that if there's any founded concerns a trans woman would get bitten in this hypothetical interaction then we should probably just WP:NOTHERE right now. However then I went and looked at the diffs in question and the discussion that was on the user's talk page and I have to ask: has anyone considered this might all be a troll? Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    perhaps my useful non-gender related edits might tip you off to the fact that im not a troll? here’s something non-gender related articles i fixed up: Monster-taming game, Cookie Run: Kingdom, Acer Aspire One Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this is a straightforward WP:RGW or WP:NOTTHERAPY block. Misplaced Pages quite a number of women editors and they seem to be fine and don't seem to experience overt persecution. I just don't see how this user can reasonably be expected to collaborate with others, a core requirement of Misplaced Pages editing, if they're just going to accuse everyone else of being misogynists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them removing mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, Poe's law in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @TTYDDoopliss Hrm. So is the inference that you willingly and knowingly made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Surprised they weren't blocked after calling the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". EF 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    that’s… not an insult? just an observation Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. EF 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    “Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. EF 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over WP:BRD, it’s easier and takes less time. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is not what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm suspecting trolling, here. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for WP:CIVIL violations. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information about the exploitation caused by the games industry - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make women working in the games industry literally less visible, seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    clearly you’ve never had a phobia, or OCD. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. Tarlby 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    You've already been told by Liz, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • TTYDDoopliss, I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed.
    And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, Liz 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like WP:CHILDPROTECT but for women? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm looking at this edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    There's this which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    What we would expect is to find WP:MEDRS compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in WP:OR in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK. Now I'm looking at this edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I removed it because it made me upset. What? Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just WP:TROLLING, a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    fine ill shut up now Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    This edit also looks like parody. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the male protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    No one said or implied any such thing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    This edit actually takes a WP:MEDRS cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    This edit is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners."
    However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. Tarlby 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because you have disrupted multiple topics. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    what can I do to make you guys believe me? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    That ship has sailed. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've gone ahead and blocked them. It's clear we're being trolled. They're not only offensively characterising men, they're offensively characterising women and people with mental illnesses. Thay also can't keep their own lies and beliefs straight. We're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: Indefinite block

    For disruptive editing and failure to get the point. I propose that TTYDDoopliss be indefintely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Toa_Nidhiki05: WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

    Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the Republican Party (United States). They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at Republican Party (United States) and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue.

    diff

    diff

    diff

    diff

    (The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)

    Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like. diff

    More specifically this line:

    Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through. (right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change)

    diff

    I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("or called for a moratorium on changes") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content (Only one active discussion-engaged user). Other editors, like @Cortador, have been calling them out for this as well.

    Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.

    There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with 'Are you fucking kidding me.'. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for so many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs.

    Addendum: this TBAN for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    The page-in-question should be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.
    What Warrenmck does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up all the time. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.
    For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was Czello. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.
    I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a minor faction, per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that

    Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?

    and you responded

    Which is labeling the party as it.

    Which isn't how NPOV editing works.
    Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.
    I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes
    Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point here. Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. I did not make the change I knew would be controversial, that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal (diff) Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.
    This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.
    What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Literally in this ANI:
    Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"
    That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:
    Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are making a distinction without a difference. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Toa_Nidhiki05 appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks WP:OWN:

      An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

      The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a hell of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.
      Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (diff, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has WP:WIKILAWYERed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As Cortador said, "Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?" Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Springee appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. diff diff diff and diff. I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:
      The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late
      Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @The Four Deuces appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up all over[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find years worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.
      If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling diff diff Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. Cortador (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. Nemov (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      Respectfully WP:CPUSH and WP:SEALION are behavioural problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (diff).
    while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree at all makes this pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for Republican Party (United States). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: Toa was TBANed for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was

    Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.

    This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. Springee (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.
    And very clearly retaliatory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.
    You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings
    Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the exact types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with Springee about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for the exact same behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. This is because it says that the party isn't just a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist George Wallace and the fascist propagandist Father Coughlin. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok here's the correct quote now: The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.
    This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.
    While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.
    Now this article does compare the Democratic party as a whole to Trump on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it. The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, the New York Times introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." Editorial and opinion commentary says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.
    It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.
    My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.
    It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at WP:AE? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.
    If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.
    On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. TFD (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    See Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
    Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?
    If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. TFD (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page:

    1. The OP made a thread on Talk:Republican Party (United States) saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right".
    2. Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this.
    3. ???
    4. AN/I thread

    Is there anything I'm missing here? jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?
    But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.
    You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @JPxG engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating
    You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings
    In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification diff diff with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing diff diff.
    A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • As I expected, @Warrenmck: - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
    • First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the Stacey Abrams page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of this report.
    • Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you still cannot define what POV I am pushing - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning is. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is yours, because it's been utterly ridiculous.
    • You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. I think everything I said is correct. Your proposal was bad. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
    • Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me here of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to agree with me.
    • Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
    • I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time, and you're wasting everyone's time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POV. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:
      Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.
      Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the context in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a diff.
      1. You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.
      2. Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for years, once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not
      3. In the absence of any substantive objection, WP:RS material should be added in.
      WP:ONUS doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If you're going to accuse @Springee: of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
    • Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a local consensus exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
    • With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. Springee (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Warrenmck, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can back away Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Reading through this, it does seem that Toa is engaged in polite POV pushing and dismissing any source they dislike, along with some WP:POINTy tagging in retaliation for their own cites being questioned. At this point, I think an WP:AE filing for the American Politics CTOP is needed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you please explain what POV I am pushing here?
    Additionally: I want to emphasize that my source checks have resulted in no change to the prose of the article - this is because each of the source groupings (which had over a half-dozen, or verging on a dozen citations each) have at least one or more source(s) that actually meet the claim in question, and I think the claims in question are, demonstrably, pretty accurate. The source reviews are simply removing cases of citation overkill that don't actually meet the specific claims in question. As far as I can tell, none of these citation groupings were added by Warrenmck or other involved editors in question here; I didn't object on page to the inclusion of content related to right-wing populism, I didn't object to it being added to the infobox, and I didn't object to it being added to the lead - and I don't object to the inclusion of said content now. The only thing I object to is the inclusion of citations that don't back up claims. Do you have any specific objections to the sources that I've tagged? Toa Nidhiki05 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

    On 26 October 2024, I informed User:Scherbatsky12 about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.

    Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by WP:GS/AA such as the following: Ibrahim Rahimov, Hokuma Aliyeva, Khalil Rza Uluturk, and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:

    Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: "On the day of the performance, there was a large audience, most of whom were Armenians". It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.
    This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were alerted is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't competent enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And now that I'm back after having power out for a couple of days due to the storm, I see they've continued editing. I've blocked for 48 hours, hopefully that will be enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Caribbean Hindustani

    This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the Caribbean Hindustani article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. Tarlby 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: Hermes Express (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.
    He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.
    I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. Adrikshit (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Danny5784

    Danny5784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite a litany of talk page warnings and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy:

    Danny5784 also has issues with copyright: they uploaded a large number of now-deleted files on Commons and seem unwilling to actually obtain verifiable permission, then did the exact same thing here, plus using blatantly false non-free content criteria.

    With 460 edits over 15 months, Danny5784 is past the point where these can just be dismissed as newbie mistakes. They are a rather young editor who is unwilling or unable to follow basic norms such as notability, reliable sourcing, and copyright. Until they demonstrate more maturity, I believe a prohibition from page creation (article, template, and file upload) is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
    Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than high school so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. Toyota683 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear  Confirmed result.-- Ponyo 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Clerical note that this user is not the similarly named DannyS712. jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article

    LivinAWestLife made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. Springee (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you really have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see WP:HTVC. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Couldn't you have just used inspect element? Doombruddah (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their rope. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. Departure– (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Editor repeatedly reverting edits

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

    This editor is starting editwar again, just reverted my edit, and has done this before with these edits A and B, repeatedly.! I tried to communicate on talk page but editor just went away! For such behavior the editor has been blocked before

    This editor last time also pushed me to violate WP:3RR , While i was trying to improve the SIF article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per WP:CRITS where it is clearly mentioned

    "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."

    Because, before this, i was reading similar article, Minjung theology and the criticism section make it easy to understand.

    I don't know why the editor doesn't understand Theology and criticism are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! Sokoreq (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello, Sokoreq,
    First WP:ANEW is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. Liz 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. Liz 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry@Liz actually before this, i went on your talk page to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided edit warnings. Sokoreq (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". WP:3RR is a bright line. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. Liz 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    They edit in group, while i started a discussion first but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on talk page but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. Sokoreq (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the associated talk page for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? Sokoreq (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Science_of_Identity_Foundation is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG sanction is appropriate here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are we sure they understand? Moxy🍁 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @MrOllie Yeh, I went to the COI noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my talk page. What do you want to prove through this? Sokoreq (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with User:Hipal from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at WP:ANEW. Liz 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I read over Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Science of Identity Foundation discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. Liz 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on WP:ANEW. Thanks again Sokoreq (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked.

    I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is WP:NOTHERE , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent canvassing, here and here and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --Hipal (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't know what you're up to, but from the beginning, I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if they are using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, their own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Trolling at Talk:Denali

    Done (for now). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    WP:RBI please. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    WP:AIV? Tarlby 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Semi-protected now, thanks User:Isabelle Belato Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn

    Resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    EWN report stalled, so bringing this here. User:GiggaHigga127 and I engaged in an edit war at Conor Benn, which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for good reason), User:Dennis Definition shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the exact same edit for the "win", whilst predictably denying any connection. How is this not gaming?

    I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at WikiProject Boxing and see if anything needs tweaking at our style guide, but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- Ponyo 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118)

    An IP is behaving similary to an IP range blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to block evasion.

    The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.

    Banned Blocked IP

    Banned Blocked IP Sock

    Suspect Second blocked IP Redacted II (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    EDIT: The IP is now banned blocked, with the original IP's ban block extended by another three months. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for the correction on my wording. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Harassment and personal attacks

    Riventree called another editor and myself a moron, said to track down the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an idiot. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: 'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA). Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:
    • "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
    • "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
    • "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."
    I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:
    ... that the retelling of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the feminist perspective?
    From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.
    I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:
    to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:
    I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.
    Dictionary.com says:
    Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.”
    Collins says:
    If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.
    She had spent years trying to track down her parents.
    I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.
    The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.
    There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.
    Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page and And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page. Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says "Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there." on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment. This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: commute block to topic ban

    Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator explicitly said no) and JPxG's cowboy admin action should not stand, but a wheel war isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.

    • Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
      • : unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
      • Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
      • : Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
      • User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
        • Similarly on other talk pages Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?
      • Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
      • Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all. 1.
      Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal: Reinstate indef

    A discussion is needed on this to prevent WP:WHEEL from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.

    • Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they are let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --Aquillion (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support I can’t for the life of me explain why the indef was overturned in the first place. The PAs were bad enough, especially when you consider how tame the blurb that instigated them is. The Kip 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I think it would be better to see what they do after the two-week block and what it would merit, re-indeffing already is a bit premature. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. That was unacceptable, but a first offense, and two weeks is plenty. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      See GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above; this is not a first incident. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support and would support defining this as a community ban. The outburst was unacceptable on its own, but as it's been shown that it's the latest in a pattern of unacceptable actions constituting harassment, combined with a history of blatantly POV commentary and corresponding edits in article space, this editor should not be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support: I think an indef for an editor who has behaved the way they have, historically and recently, will be a positive preventative measure. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Anonymous8206

    Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at Donald Trump for over a year. Examples: .

    They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    WP:BLP policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: Special:PermanentLink/1268615581#Liddle Hart. I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to Talk:Donald Trump in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual

    (non-admin closure) Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating WP:HID. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    As the title suggests, this includes:

    Making personal attacks such as "Enough of explaining r@cist Brits what to do", "you're probably an ignorant British man", and has tried to remove relevant content about 4 times now.
    Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See WP:COMMUNICATE.

    Both of them were sufficiently warned. Capitals00 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't currently editing it appears. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a WP:FORUM attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. Borgenland (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. Capitals00 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have blocked both editors indefinitely. Hate is disruptive. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks

    2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) I saw an IP making an unmistakable personal attack on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and all of their edits are like this, it seems. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. Departure– (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    I blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) EF 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incivility and edit-warring

    After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little WP:ROPE is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. MolecularPilot 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This is concerning user User:Thelittlefaerie (talk and contributions). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at List of countries and dependencies by population needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me):

    Users involved:

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

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

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

    Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Dates:

    20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation.

    21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.

    22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the talk page.

    26 Dec 2024 : User User:MIHAIL (talk and contributions) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)

    3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase "This is your final straw."

    7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: "why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism". In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.

    16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary "And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person." and also "Either stop or I'll keep making edits." This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by User:Magnolia677.

    17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he "could not reach out to you Magnolia677" (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page.

    22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: "I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."

    I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.

    Wizmut (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to WP:LTA-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. MolecularPilot 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.
    I think if you can apologise and agree to not make personal attacks against other editors again, and refrain from edit warring (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek dispute resolution.
    Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! MolecularPilot 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.
    Thank you,
    Thelittlefaerie Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    (I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Update: Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) MolecularPilot 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Swagsgod

    (non-admin closure) Swagsgod blocked and TPA revoked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Can User:Swagsgod please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. Fram (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looking into it. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
    • Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God
    • Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests
    etc. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? Meters (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source

    The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption.

    2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:d12c:6979:d06c:9d74, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:ec:5fe:fa19:caa0, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:7c47:7be6:c3c9:7078 and 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:6d71:4017:3ed8:b70d Catalyst GP real (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    142.190.62.131

    Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ISP, then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles

    This situation looks resolved. Liz 04:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    An IP range user (2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including BLPs). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know here why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information eg 1 eg 2.

    The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. Citing (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Tried notifying them here for what that's worth. Citing (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Could I please get some help here? IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using 2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is  Confirmed block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been blocked twice previously for disruption.-- Ponyo 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you! Citing (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abusive user

    Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Moved from the help desk. Courtesy link: Opolito (talk · contribs), filed by Shaggydan (talk · contribs), moved by Departure– (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? Shaggydan (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. Departure– (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Shaggydan. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for this edit of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Shaggydan: - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as this will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at this edit, I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. TiggerJay (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with actual personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
    I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many characters are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
    Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
    He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
    I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
    Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
    29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
    On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
    These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
    I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. Shaggydan (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information

    Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on Gerald Butler (writer) (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user continuously reverts. After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--Bricks&Wood talk 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP

    Edit summary revdel'd and GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs) blocked for one week for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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


    Apologies if this is the incorrect location, is a BLP violation and may need redacting. Flat Out (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Per WP:REVDELREQUEST, you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've made a note of that. Flat Out (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    revoke TPA for User:Xpander1?

    Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. Beeblebrox 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations

    Dear admins, I am reaching out to request a review of the recent deletions of articles related to the Astana platform. While I have already contacted the administrator responsible for the deletions, I believe a third-party review would ensure fairness and transparency. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. I understand that concerns have been raised about alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts, particularly regarding my interest in Randa Kassis and related topics. I would like to clarify that my interest in Randa Kassis stems from her international prominence, especially during the period when her meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and her role in the Astana platform gained significant media coverage. This explains the connection between my edits to her page and other related articles. My contributions have focused solely on adding reliable references and improving information with a neutral tone, as reflected in the edit history. Additionally, the articles in question were edited by multiple users and administrators over time, highlighting a shared interest in Syria’s geopolitical significance and its key figures. The collaborative nature of these edits reflects diverse perspectives rather than coordinated efforts. If there is concrete evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, I kindly request that it be presented. I fully support Misplaced Pages’s principles of transparency and remain committed to addressing any legitimate concerns.

    It is also worth noting that the articles about Randa Kassis and Fabien Baussart include critical and controversial perspectives. At no point have I attempted to remove or alter critical content or promote a specific narrative. My sole intent has been to ensure accuracy and neutrality.

    I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time. Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrivain Wagner (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Deletion review is what you are looking for. This noticeboard doesn't handle reviews of recent deletions of articles. And I'm not seeing any reports about "alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts", on this noticeboard or on your talk page, so it's unclear how we can help you in that regard. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    To clarify what this is about, please see Astana Platform - 21:22 UTC 5 Jan 2025 version here, and 14:00 UTC 22 Jan 2025 version here. My apologies for not using {{Template:Diff}}, it's a bit too maths-y for me. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    For added context, see this AARV thread, from where the user was sent here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you for your reply; I greatly appreciate it. While I’m not experienced with templates, I like to occasionally make contributions when I can.
    The admin “Squirrel Conspiracy” merged the page for the Astana Platform into the Randa Kassis page. I am unsure who can help me review this deletion. If you check my contributions, you’ll see that I tried reaching out to the admin but received no response. I also requested a review to address and resolve the misunderstanding, but I haven’t had any luck so far.
    Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    That appears to be normal editing under WP:BLAR rather than administrative action. As such it is a content dispute and off-topic here. Take it up on the talk page of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have been pinged to this discussion, so here's my two cents. I support this action (which I originally proposed) and this one by @The Squirrel Conspiracy:. The same could perhaps be done with the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians : that group did exist but from the few sources I could find it seems to have been pretty negligible and to have evaporated pretty quickly. Astana Platform may warrant an article but I agree that in its latest form the page was pretty much "unfixable". Mentions of the peace talks in Astana should be developed in Syrian peace process, and it should of course specified that the so-called Astana process was sponsored by Russia and boycotted by the opposition's High negotiation committee.
    I can't tell if it was the work of a paid editor, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person of several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages, make her look more important than she actually was within the Syrian opposition, obfuscate her ties to Russia and perhaps even embellish her professional credentials. The Randa Kassis page and all mentions of her and her role in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian opposition and the peace talks endorsed by Russia need to be cleaned up and closely monitored. Psychloppos (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus.

    I’d like to bring attention to the actions of User:Dronebogus, who has been systematically removing entire external links sections from several hobby-related articles, including Knitting, Origami, and others. While they cite WP:LINKFARM and reliability concerns, the external links guideline (WP:EL) explicitly permits some links that may not meet reliability standards but are still useful to readers (e.g., learning resources from knowledgeable sources). Other users oppose these actions but this user is not willing to compromise.

    Here are some examples of their removals:

    Pitman Shorthand Removal diff

    Origami Removal diff

    Knitting Removal diff

    These sections are standard for hobby-related articles, and the wholesale removals appear to go against community norms. Despite discussions with other editors (most recent discussion here: ]), they have continued this behavior without consensus.

    I’ve already notified the user about this discussion. Input from administrators or the broader community would be appreciated to address this recurring issue.

    Thank you, JD Gale — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD Gale (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    I found one of the discussions you refer to: for interested readers—Talk:Pitman_shorthand#External_links ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    And pertaining to that discussion and article, these are the external links Dronebogus removed.
    And at Origami, these external links were removed.
    And at Knitting, these external links were removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    On Origami, they removed links showing Robert J. Lang talking about and performing Origami folding despite him being one of the worlds leading theorists on Origami. On Knitting, they removed links to the trade associated for knitting yarn manufacturers which is a common link on a subject, a link to the UIllinois LibGuide that has librarian curated links to in-depth research material about knitting, and all the categories and authority control templates. They did go back and add back the categories it but the first swipe shows carelessness. Everytime I see Dronebogus at ANI, it seems to be for taking some guideline and going hard core enforcing it without any nuance or care. @Floquenbeam: summed it up best: "I'm pretty tired of Dronebogus wandering around hunting for stuff to be outraged about." spryde | talk 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Understood and apologies if I made it appear you were commenting on this behavior. I was wondering where I saw DB's name before and I finally put two and two together with the previous XFD discussion and other ANI discussions. I saw your quote and thought, at least in my mind, applied to this situation and I could not state it better. spryde | talk 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    These should be reverted, per sp and especially Floquenbeam's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    In Links to be considered, WP:ELMAYBE lists Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Dronebogus thinks that line is "oxymoronic to the point of uselessness" and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be "notable" (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    This looks like a content issue that should be addressed on the talk-pages of the respective articles. If I've followed correctly, I believe the timeline is:
    • Jan 8: Dronebogus removed EL on Pitman article with the comment how about none
    • Jan 10: JD Gale reverted with no edit description. Dronebogus then removed them again with the edit description Reverted good faith edits by JD Gale (talk): No rationale provided for restoring a huge link farm of seemingly WP:OWNed personal opinion
    • Jan 16: JD Gale opened a discussion on the article talk page.
    • Jan 22: JD Gale made this comment referencing the Knitting and Origami pages. Dronebogus then removed the external links in those articles ( ).
    • Jan 23: Dronebogus opened a discussion on the External links talk page asking for clarification. Around 7 hours later, JD Gale opens this ANI.
    As it stands, I'm just seeing a content dispute and a difference in interpretation of EL guidelines that is appropriately migrating to the EL talk page for clarification. Is there some context I'm missing here? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Adillia

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

    I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on File:Love Scout poster.png but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png and File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, where the file are uploaded in WP:GOODFAITH and abided WP:IMAGERES but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did bad faith.

    Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at Close Your Eyes (group). Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:D.18th

    Withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    D.18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore WP:GOODFAITH. Aidillia 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    :This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism. Aidillia 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Aidilla: You have failed to notify D.18th (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in this not ending well for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as Comment. Liz 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done, thanks! Aidillia 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Resumption

    I've unarchived this because they're resumed edit warring with each other at File:Study_Group_(TV_series)_poster.png/File:Study_Group poster.png. Repeating my comment from above to give it more attention: I propose that D.18th and Aidillia are banned from interacting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    * Pppery *, I think you should notify both editors of your action on ANI, especially as this discussion might have an impact on them. Liz 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both files were created by Aidillia and I don't know why they need to do that. I uploaded a new version at Study Group poster.png but then I was reverted without a valid reason then Aidillia uploaded a redundant file so they'll have an WP:OWNERSHIP.Another file they keep messing up is File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets WP:IMAGERES, I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh again? WP:OWNERSHIP? I left you a valid reason in the file! or maybe you don't want to understand it! As I already did some research, maybe it's considered as the main poster, as the main trailer is already out; (because there are no reliable sources that say it's the main poster) that's why I reverted it back after that. But I want to create a new file instead of renaming it. You're the one who ignore my WP:GOODFAITH again and again over a small thing. Aidillia 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    "I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets WP:IMAGERES, I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT."
    That situation is the situation that u did to me before!
    I also meets WP:IMAGERES! But u keep reverting my edits!? What is your PROBLEM? Aidillia 10:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are you that interested in being engaged in WP:EDITWAR over a ridiculous thing? You've been here for many years, but why are you wasting your time warring over ridiculous things? Please stop making it complicated. Just ignore it but why are you fight it until the end? I've been blocked by you twice. What's your problem? Aidillia 10:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please also stop your behaviour, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, like what u did to someone on File:Light Shop poster.png. Stop uploading for your prefered version! It's so unnecessary. Aidillia 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support two-way IBAN for now. As a bystander, this situation has devolved into a prolonged WP:BATTLEGROUND, possibly including WP:HOUNDING, with increasingly absurd interactions between both parties beyond just edit warring on filespace, including nominating each other's "creations" for deletion which seems like a retaliatory behaviour. Furthermore, I fail to understand the obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft as both parties exhibited in their contributions when neither constitutes ownership or a noteworthy achievement on Misplaced Pages. If a two-way IBAN is ineffective, this effectively constitutes WP:DISRUPTIVE and possibly WP:NOTHERE hence I believe that a block should be enforced against the first party to violate the ban. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Resumption again

    This appears to be a resumption of disruptive behavior, this time occurring on draftspace. I believe there is a potential case of HOUNDING by Aidillia against D.18th. Furthermore, this ownership and uncollaborative behavior, which I previously described as an "obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft" is evident once again. Given this is the third instance here on this topic, could we finally have some conclusions and actions taken? Also noting that the previous discussion was auto-archived due to inactivity without official administrative actions pertaining to IBAN being logged into WP:EDRC.

    On Draft:Please Stop Drinking/Draft:Please Quit Drinking.

    • 3:07 – @D.18th created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to Gong Myung.
    • 4:22 – @Aidillia created Draft:Please Quit Drinking pointing to the same mainspace.
    • 4:22 – Aidillia converted their draft to a skeleton outline.
    • 4:34 – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
    • 4:49 – D.18th reverted the changes stating "This is the literal translation of the Korean title".
    • 4:51 – Aidillia posted onto D.18th's talk page asking to D.18th's to "delete Draft:Please Stop Drinking" so that they could move their created draft.
    • 11:10 – Aidillia cut-paste the content (permalink) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
    • 11:11 – Aidillia moved D.18th's draft to User:Aidillia/Please Stop Drinking.
    • 12:08 – Aidillia moved their draft to Draft:Please Stop Drinking.

    On Draft:Typhoon Company/Draft:Typhoon Boss

    • 3:48 – D.18th created Draft:Typhoon Company pointing to List of programs broadcast by tvN (South Korean TV channel).
    • 3:53 – Aidillia created Draft:Typhoon Boss with content of "Typhoon Boss".
    • 3:55 – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
    • 3:58 – D.18th reverted Aidillia changes.
    • 3:59 – Aidillia reverted D.18th changes.
    • 4:03 – Aidillia redirect their draft to D.18th's draft.
    • 4:04 – Aidillia cut-paste the content (permalink) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
    • 4:14 – D.18th overwrited the cut-paste content from their draft.
    • 4:17 – Aidillia added external link with edit summary of "Even HanCinema link also said it is Typhoon Boss".
    • 4:56 – Aidillia added redirect templates to their draft with edit summary of "sopspspwpwppwpwpwpwppwpwpeppeowoow".

    — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Seems like Aidillia is intentionally harassing D18 trying to antagonize them into another incident. This shows a pattern of resorting to weird tactics in order to be the “first” to create something.
    This discussion has been sitting on ANI for weeks with no real measures being taken. An interaction ban needs to be enacted ASAP, with possibly an additional block on page creation and/or page moves if this behaviour is seen to be chronic. RachelTensions (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 Muatsem90 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your point? •Cyberwolf•talk? 21:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    User talk:Juice and ye 999

    Can someone please revoke TPA? Thanks. C F A 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    37.47.76.95 - personal attacks

    IP account blocked for a week. Liz 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    37.47.76.95 (talk · contribs) - self-explanatory from this. Whoever they are, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Departure– (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll add I'm active in a few sockpuppet investigations and a few semi-controversial discussions especiallly around the California fires and Gulf of Mexico so it wouldn't shock me too much if this was a sock or LOUT because this is clearly targeted towards me in particular. Maybe a CU will be needed if this continues. Departure– (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mr. Accuracy Specialist

    Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:

    Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:

    I have asked three times for specific details about an edit----but was ignored, while this editor continued their mostly error-filled editing. This may be a user with limited English, using AI. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    I would support a temp block warning him in several different languages (my gripe when dealing with users like this) if he continues after the first block an indef block would suffice
    Off topic but user talk:Iiii I I I is straight gold I’m gagging lol •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    To explain my warning a little, I think Mr. Accuracy Specialist is using AI because of edits like one, two, three – the links have the URL parameter ?utm_source=chatgpt.com and the cited websites do not back up what was written. He has also made suspiciously well written, but unsourced, edits to sea snails that are likely LLMs: four, five, six.
    I was actually debating reporting Mr. Accuracy Specialist to SPI a few days earlier because I thought he was a sockpuppet of 202.57.44.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I held off because I wasn't sure about it. The IP was previously reported at this ANI post for making edits to Philippine film articles. User:Borgenland mentions there is possible COI - maybe they would like to provide input here? Here's the gist of what I was going to write:
    • 202.57.44.130 makes tens of edits to articles related to GMA Pictures in a short period of time, then stops at 13:35, January 18, 2025 (UTC) and has not edited again as of this moment.
      • Mr. Accuracy Specialist is created five hours later, then continues the same pattern of making dozens of edits in short bursts.
    • After a hundred minor edits (to build credibility?), Mr. Accuracy Specialist also starts to edit the same articles related to GMA Pictures.
    Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just noticed 139.135.241.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also made a dozen edits to List of films produced and released by GMA Pictures with edit summaries very similar to 202.57.44.130. For example, the same threats: this vs. this.
    See also the Interaction Timeline, where there is lots of overlap. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    System gaming by NandivadaHungama

    I believe NandivadaHungama (talk · contribs · count) is WP:Gaming the system per WP:PGAME by editing their user page 500 times and thus should have extended-confirmed rights removed.--A09|(talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:ThePurgatori

    In summary: user makes many problematic edits to many articles with no source and edit summary, continues doing so despite being warned multiple times, and refuses to respond to complaints nor engage in discussion.

    Since October 2024, User:ThePurgatori has been (and is still) unilaterally adding Category:Possible dwarf planets (as well as including mentions of "possible dwarf planet" in lede sentences and "p-DP" in infoboxes) to an alarmingly high number (over 300!) of trans-Neptunian object (TNO) articles, even those which are obviously too small to qualify as a dwarf planet or have never been called a possible dwarf planet in the scientific literature see this example. For every single one of their edits, they gave no edit summary justifying their category additions. From what I've seen with ThePurgatori's edits, they either don't give a source for the "possible dwarf planet" category or they cite only Mike Brown's list of dwarf planets, which I see as unreliable and POV-pushing for the reasons I've given here.

    Adjacent to mass-categorizing TNO articles, ThePurgatori has also been mass-adding TNOs to Template:Dwarf planets and transcluding that template to TNO articles they have mass-categorized with Category:Possible dwarf planets. The template includes a comment that explicitly says that "Only those TNOs whose absolute magnitudes ≤ +4.3, are not Haumeids, and have diameter ≥ 400 km should be included in this template." ThePurgatori ignored this comment and added numerous objects to the template such as 54598 Bienor, which obviously not over 400 km in diameter. Furthermore, they arbitrarily changed the absolute magnitude (H) limit from +4.3 to +5.5 in this edit with no justification given. ThePurgatori's edits to Template:Dwarf planets have since been reverted, but the template is still inappropriately transcluded to many TNO articles.

    Outside of mass-editing articles, ThePurgatori has been (and is still) frequently making unreferenced additions to Resonant trans-Neptunian object, List of possible dwarf planets, and multiple lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects.

    I've notified ThePurgatori about my concerns about their edits on their talk page and asked them to stop their edits until they respond to my concerns. They did not respond, but did show some compliance by reverting some of their dwarf planet-categorized TNOs following my first request. For some of their reverts, they did include an edit summary too (for example, "1997 RT5 is not a dwarf planet. A size of 205 km is too small LMAO"), but never gave any meaningful explanation to why they added that category in the first place. I asked ThePurgatori on their talk page to respond again, several more times. Also no response, and by the time I posted my third comment to their talk page on 23:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC), ThePurgatori had already moved on from removing Category:Possible dwarf planets from TNO articles and continued editing numerous TNO articles, keeping the Category:Possible dwarf planets category I was complaining about (like in this edit of 420356 Praamzius, a TNO that I mentioned as an example of an object that has never been called a dwarf planet in the scientific literature in my message in ThePurgatori's talk page). And after I explained to them what TNOs to not categorize as "possible dwarf planets", they happened to revert one of my edits arguing that a particular object isn't a dwarf planet, without explanation.

    I also notified ThePurgatori and asked them to comment in two talk page discussions: Talk:List of possible dwarf planets questioning the (un)reliability of the list website ThePurgatori has used to justify their dwarf planet claims, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy discussing how the "possible dwarf planet category" should be applied. No response from ThePurgatori either. Just today (at 19:14, 23 January 2025 UTC), ThePurgatori has received two warnings on their talk page from User:Renerpho and User:ArkHyena, both complaining about ThePurgatori's unreferenced edits. No response, and ThePurgatori continues making said unreferenced edits after their warnings.

    When I first encountered this user, I thought prodding them multiple times via talk page would get them to do something to address their problematic edits, but at this point it's become a futile waste of time. Frankly, it's very frustrating. I've been hesitant about going to WP:ANI over this since I felt that would be going too far, but it's all I can do now.

    I am inviting @ThePurgatori:, the subject of this complaint, and @Renerpho and ArkHyena: who have also been dealing with this user. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks for the tag, Nrco0e. I was reverting some of ThePurgatori's early changes to Resonant trans-Neptunian object, and although I got no reply to my message on their talk page, the next few changes they made there seemed to comply with what I told them. I then stopped checking, but I am seeing now that they just seem to ignore it in their latest edits. The list of resonant objects on that page should be handled with care, as such data becomes basically useless once you start mixing different sources. Resonances need to be confirmed computationally, and Buie is the only one who does that reliably. I'll have a look at a couple of the recent changes. It may be best to just reset that article to what it looked like a few weeks ago. Which is a great way to waste both my time, and theirs! :-(
    @ThePurgatori: If you read this, please start communicating now! It's great that you want to work on those articles, but if you don't interact with other users, chances are you'll continue causing a mess! Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Regarding my suggestion to roll back Resonant trans-Neptunian object, that already happened shortly before I wrote that comment, by ArkHyena (reverting 29 edits spanning about a month). ThePurgatori has since edited the article twice, although I checked that particular addition and it is not problematic, following the standard reference (Buie) we have specified. Either they got lucky, or they've noticed the complaints. Renerpho (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Anyway you can tl;dr this? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    ThePurgatori continues to edit astronomy-related articles, and even though they've been warned that their edits are not constructive and against consensus, they remain unresponsive and continue to cause a mess. Renerpho (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am tagging Kwamikagami, who has been involved in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Category:Possible dwarf planets & Template:Dwarf planets, and who has just removed that category from a lot of articles. -- Maybe you have some insights into how to best approach this? Renerpho (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    First, let's splash a scary-looking warning template on their talk page. If they still don't engage, I'd give them a warning block of a few days to really get their attention, leaving them with the ability to respond on talk pages . Once/if they engage, maybe the problems can be resolved. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I went ahead and gave them another warning. Renerpho (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    It should be noted that there is a major ongoing discussion at WP:SPACE's talk page over how to handle candidate dwarf planets here. ThePurgatori has been directed to participate in the discussion by Nrco0e, though they have yet to participate. Specifics aside, it was agreed to state on Category:Possible dwarf planets that objects included were >700 km in diameter; soon after, ThePurgatori changed the statement to say 600 km with little explanation. It appears that ThePurgatori is intent on imposing a standard across astronomy articles that was not agreed upon by other users, despite several attempts at communicating with them. I am not sure what measures should be taken to resolve this, but this behavior is not constructive. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    In their edits to List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects: 2010 from today, they've not only changed the diameters without sufficient explanation (as already pointed out), but have also changed the object count in a strange way. The article's source (a combination of and ) lists 39 objects in that category. They are saying in the article lede that there are 38. Their list includes 40. This may be an honest mistake, but I am getting tired of trying to clean up behind them. We do require some WP:COMPETENCE. Renerpho (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    The diameters in List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects: 2001 have also been changed in 3 edits since 16 January, without an edit summary (similarly to the case of the 2010 list already mentioned), and I cannot follow where their numbers come from. Renerpho (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but they have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for sockpuppetry. Not sure how relevant that is for us. Renerpho (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Disruptive editor won't stop

    Cbls1911 (talk · contribs · count) has made numerous disruptive edits to US political pages. I have reverted a few but there are too many. Could someone please look into their contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkvtsh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sorry. I forgot to sign it. Was typing in a rush. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hello, Ktkvtsh. When you post a complaint on a noticeboard, you have to provide diffs/edits that show examples of what the problem is. If editors have to go hunting to find out what you are referring to, it's unlikely that this post will get a response. You have to present evidence to support your claim that there is disruptive editing going on. Liz 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cbls1911 appears to be changing ordinal indicators to incorrect forms, such as 31st to 31th, even after being warned. Not blocking yet, but I likely will if they continue with this. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic