< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 03:34, 21 June 2024 view sourcePublius Obsequium (talk | contribs)273 edits →Publius Obsequium disruption: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← 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|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}		{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}		{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize =800K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 1158		|counter = 1177
	|algo = old(72h)		|algo = old(72h)
	|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c		|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
Line 17:		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 ==
	== Conduct dispute against ] and ] in ] ==
			{{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 have been unable to reach understanding with ] who persists in reverting to the ] article and has received full partisan support from ]. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Misplaced Pages guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a ] regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Misplaced Pages. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective ] interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).
			* on ] and ] grounds
	Geogene raised an ] objection against properly sourced content and made ] allegations that I am trying to push a ] viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per ]), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their ] of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).
			* on ] and ]
	Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that "]" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.
			*They've been warned about ] and .
	The discussion history can be found on ] and on ]. The ] may also be relevant.
			*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
	As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding ] content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.
			*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
	Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be ], committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than ] because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.
			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.
	I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.
			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)
	To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. ] (]) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (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)
	:While your message isn't entirely about a content dispute, a lot of it is and that's not the sort of thing this noticeboard is for. I did my best to read and comprehend that talk page discussion and I just keep coming back to the same question: why hasn't anyone tried an RFC yet? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 20:49, 30 May 2024 (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)
	::I understood that ].
			::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 grant that it may look like a content dispute. However, what I encountered was a wholesale revert and an attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist, therefore I fail to see what specific question in the content of my contribution could be the subject of an RfC here. The question of the existence of the debate has emerged as the underlying point of contention, but please note that this was not covered by my contribution and its sources. The broad framing of the entire conflict is something that was imposed on me by the two disagreeing editors. To address that larger question comprehensively, a whole new edit would need to be proposed - and I would actually happily spend time preparing one, but I want some assurance I am not going to be met with unjustified edit warring again. ] (]) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (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)
	:::@], that's part of the instructions of things to try ''before'' opening an RfC (use ] if more than two editors). ]&nbsp;] 22:46, 30 May 2024 (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)
	::::I know. I did not think it was a content dispute but if there is a general agreement here that it should be treated as one, then I could try to open either an RfC or a DRN discussion. However, would there be sufficient space to cite the evidence in support of my position in the RfC or DRN summary? I cannot expect all contributing editors to do their own reading. As I tried to explain above, the matter is not covered by my contested contribution. The literature is substantial and not discussed on Misplaced Pages to my knowledge. I will appreciate your advice. ] (]) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
	:::::@], it is a content dispute. I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page. My personal advice is to drop it. If you choose to pursue DRN or an RfC, I strongly suggest that you learn to summarize your argument succinctly. ]&nbsp;] 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:*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.
	::::::On what grounds please - (1) content dispute, (2) drop it, (3) summarise succinctly? ] (]) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:::::::@], you asked for my advice; I gave it. I don't know what more you want. ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:*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.
	::::::With all respect, I have asked you for advice with how to tackle the fact that I am expected to defend myself from exaggerated charges that are not really covered by my edit, since RfC or DRN was suggested. I did not ask for advice on whether you think I should accept emotional blackmail and character assassination from other editors.
			:*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.
	::::::Since we are a community on Misplaced Pages your advice has as much value as your insight into the matter. Therefore I asked to know why you think what you think. And if you think my case has no merit, then it is even more necessary for me to learn why that should be the case. ] (]) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:Geogene's actions are not vandalism, and I suggest you refrain from describing them as such. This is a content dispute, not a conduct one, so there is very little that administrators can do here. If you want to add your changes to the article, get consensus for them first, possibly through an RfC. —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:*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.
	::I understand that you disagree with my description of Geogene's actions as vandalism but could you offer any reasoning for this? As for RfC I considered it but decided it was not appropriate (as explained in my reply above). I will appreciate your advice on how to frame it as an RfC. ] (]) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:::@] Edits made in good faith, even if they are disruptive, ]. Vandalism implies a wilful intent to harm the encyclopedia, and if such intent is not obvious, then continuing to call edits vandalism ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			: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)
	::::Perhaps I am wrong on this, but for me to assume good faith means that I can add information to the article without being asked to meet the two arbitrary conditions suggested by Geogene in their opening post of the discussion:
			::{{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.}}
	::::(1) use sources more recent than the cut-off date for whatever Geogene considers "modern" in every instance, and
			::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.
	::::(2) censor myself to avoid "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation" at any cost (i.e. twisting everything to suit a predefined viewpoint).
			::{{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.}}
	::::If these two arbitrary conditions are not attempted to be enforced through edit warring then indeed I can work together with Geogene. ] (]) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			::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
	::::I don't want to dispute the vandalism point unnecessarily, but it would seem to follow from ] that if "Even factually correct material may not belong on Misplaced Pages, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's content policies is not vandalism", then removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies may constitute vandalism. I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of ] and ] and was not persuaded that I was wrong. ] (]) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}}
	:::::Vandalism is like griefing: if someone thinks that their edit is improving the article it's not vandalism. It literally means, like, when somebody replaces the text of an article with "loldongs" et cetera. What you are referring to is "]". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			::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)
	::::::{{ping|JPxG}} Are you saying my edits are disruptive? Any ambiguous statements on that are likely to encourage further problems here. And isn't the {{tq|I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.}} evidence of the real problem here? ] (]) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::{{ping|Geogene}} Yes -- '''<span style="color:#CC00FF">the thing that VampaVampa is accusing you of</span>''' is "disruptive editing", not "vandalism". I am not VampaVampa and have no idea whether this is true or not. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Thank you for the clarification - I was wrong about the definition of vandalism. Geogene's conduct is much more sophisticated than that. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, I think it is intentional. ] (]) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::VampaVampa, I'm glad you have accepted (albeit after some significant repetition) the feedback of the community here regarding what does and does not constitute article vandalism--though I do very much suggest you take a look at ], because with regard to your proposition , your conclusion does not follow from your premises. However, it is actually your last sentence in said post ({{tq|"I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of ] and ] and was not persuaded that I was wrong."}}) that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the ] is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and ] should be followed in resolving the matter.{{pb}} Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. '']]'' 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
	:] - If you have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know what ] is, you have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know ]. ] in order to "win" a content dispute is a ]. This is a content dispute, compounded by conduct. I don't know what the merits of the content dispute are. I can see that the conduct includes the ] of ]. ] (]) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you, that is clear enough and I stand corrected - there is indeed nothing in the list of vandalism types that corresponds to what I reported Geogene for. I engineered it backwards by proceeding from "removing content when it is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism" to "persisting in removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies (and argued repeatedly not to be so) may be vandalism", but I realise that has no logical purchase and is nowhere close to any of the definitions. I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to ] for the unjustified accusation on this particular point. ] (]) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I looked at the last discussion of the talkpage and stopped reading details in the first paragraph when one of the editors described the ] as holding a 'fringe scientific view' on cat predation on birds in the UK. There is little point in even entering a discussion with someone who says that, as you are never going to convince them by reasoned argument. If you are in a content dispute revolving around sourcing with an editor who is never going to change their view, your options available are a)move on, b)Try and get a neutral third opinion, start a clearly worded RFC and advertise it widely to draw in more than the usual niche editors. ] (]) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It is, however, useful to actually read the material and the cited sources before pronouncing that specific editors are "never going to be convinced by reasoned argument"... because the RSPB in the past has indeed been pleased to throw their weight behind badly reasoned minority interpretations of the science on this topic. That is the ''point'' of this dispute. Please spare the stentorian pronouncements if your time is too precious to read up on the material. - That being said, there seems to be no reason for this discussion to continue here, as multiple avenues for expanding the discussion on the article's talk page do exist, and the editor has indicated that they want to pursue them. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you very much for the advice. Depending on the outcome of this incident report, I will consider an RfC and find suitable places to advertise it through. ] seems to be suggesting that a potential RfC could revolve around how the respective positions of RSPB and Songbird Survival on cat predation of wildlife should be introduced in the article. However, as is clear from Elmidae's comment, this would likely end up triggering a much broader dispute about the respective merit of the current "majority" and "minority" conclusions drawn from available scientific evidence (assuming all of this evidence is methodologically unproblematic to either side), which could easily be the subject of a book. I think everyone's energy could be spent much more productively in editing the article, but if the only option is to debate the extensive literature in a talk page then so be it. I am open to any option that involves a careful examination of the evidence and the arguments. ] (]) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Just a quick word re the amount written hare and on the Cat predation talkpage. I've learnt over the years through my own errors, less is more. ] (]) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you, I will try to learn from my mistakes. ] (]) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Aside from not being an ANI matter, this proceeding is also redundant with an ongoing ] proceeding involving the same parties and material (specifically ]). I.e., this is a ]. "Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate" is blatant falsehood on both counts. The first half of that is what the NORN thread is about, with VampaVampa attempting to rely on 1970s primary research papers and a defunct advocacy website (and later an "attack other academics" op-ed that is the subject of the long thread of RS analysis immediate above VV's repetitive PoV-pushing thread at the article talk page), to defy current mainstream science on the topic. The second half is just made-up nonsense. In point of fact, at the article's talk page, I specifically suggested that we might need a section in the article about the history of the public debate about the subject. But to the extent that VV may instead mean entertaining perpetual opinion-laden debate {{em|on Misplaced Pages}} about such topics, see ] and ]. We are here to reflect what the modern RS material in the aggregate is telling us, not cherrypick half-century-old surpassed research claims that someone likes the sound of, and argue circularly ignoring all refutation, in an ] behavior pattern, which is what VV is bringing to this subject.<p>PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is ] (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)</p>
	::As to the ], we have reached a dead end there:
	::(1) no party uninvolved in the dispute has intervened,
	::(2) you have not replied to my last post,
	::(3) most crucially, in this last post of mine I invited you again to build the article and warned that I would report your conduct to the administrators if one of you reverts again, which Geogene proceeded to do. You left me no other option.
	::As to RFCNOT, you are probably right and I am happy to be corrected on procedures. But at this point my dispute is with your and Geogene's conduct. ] (]) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::The purpose of such noticeboards is to patiently solicit uninvolved input. There is no deadline, and starting talkforks at other noticeboards is not conducive of anything useful. Under no circumstances am I obligated to respond to your circular attempts to re-re-re-argue the same matters endlessly, and doing it at NORN would be counterproductive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::One user against two shouldn't be able to preserve their disputed content indefinitly just by bludgeoning the talk page until the opposition is tired of arguing. That's the disrputive editing here ] (]) ] (]) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::There is a policy about consensus which says ]. ] (]) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Also see ]. ] (]) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::For that good faith would have been required. ] (]) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::VampaVampa, after nearly being ]ed for arriving here with false accusations of "vandalism", has now turned to demonizing those they disagree with via false and undemonstrable accusations of bad faith. That is not exactly a wise move. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)<br />PS: It's actually worse than I thought, with VV more recently accusing someone else (EducatedRedneck) of having "a ] agenda" . At this rate, I don't think we're very far away from simply removing VV from the topic area. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
	An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is ''prima facie'' proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.
			* 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)
	Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of ] is a ''massive'' hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ''ad nauseum'' guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 01:05, 1 June 2024 (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)
	:{{ping|City of Silver}} Re {{tq|nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute}} Three editors ({{ping|EducatedRedneck}}, {{ping|Elmidae}}, {{ping|My very best wishes}}) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. ] (]) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (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)
	::{{ping|Geogene}} Before anything else, edit your message to strike the quotation marks around "blame all sides" and add a note saying you were wrong to quote me as saying that. In your note admitting you falsely ascribed words to me, please include my username so it's clear to others. I never came ''even close'' to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::{{tq|Before anything else, edit your message}} Edit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits". {{tq|I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are.}} I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in ] to express my disagreement with them. {{tq|You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website}} thank you for that. I find editing Misplaced Pages to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it. {{tq|I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people.}} and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area. {{tq|But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC?}} Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said, {{tq|The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.}} I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. ] (]) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			:*'''Support''' Ban.
	::::And see also ]; if someone text-walls with rambling claims that are a mixture of personal belief, repetition of and reliance on a defunct advocacy website, and OR extrapolation from and other reliance on ancient primary research papers from the 1970s, then later adds in op-ed material from one academic personality-smearing another and badly confusing public-policy political arguments with scientific evidence, then the response to this is necessarily going to be detailed and lengthy, because it involves multiple forms of refutation of multiple wonky claims and bad sourcing. The alternative is simply ignoring VV's input entirely, but that would be rude and less constructive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
			:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Responding because I've been pinged. I agree with City of Silver that it feels more like people are talking past each other rather than to them. It's hard not to respond to what one hears, rather than what is actually said, when a debate has become drawn-out. Based on the most recent exchange with VV, which SMC alluded to above, I fear that now includes me as well. (Accusing me of a "nativist agenda" is making it harder for me to view the matter dispassionately, and I'm not sure I'm hearing what VV is trying to say at this time.) ] (]) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (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)
	:::Thank you for this post because I could see from it that you genuinely tried to mediate, and it perhaps just so happens that with regard to the "objective" differences in worldview, which we have to somehow work past on Misplaced Pages, you seem to stand closer to Geogene and SMC, without necessarily having been aware of it. So I offer apologies for the accusation.
			::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 also declare myself ready to work with Geogene and SMcCandlish on the condition that none of us tries to seize the upper hand in advance of putting in the work to edit the article. I should make clear that to me that involves seeking to discredit sources that do not unambiguously contravene Misplaced Pages guidelines (not to exclude genuine debates on the talk page, that's a different thing). I regret but I cannot compromise on this point. ] (]) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
			::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)
	:@]: Thank you for this - even though I don't think I claimed I was right.
	:With regard to Geogene's reply, can I just point out that ] cannot be assumed? ] (]) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (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)
	::{{ping|VampaVampa}} Please don't make edits unless you think they're right. And I hope you don't expect "''impartiality''" from other editors. {{noping|My very best wishes}} hasn't said a single thing that could get them excluded from an RFC and neither has anybody else who's weighed in. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Thank you! I mostly agree with your comments and comments by Geogene and SMcCandlish above. As about user VampaVampa, they obviously made this posting to get an upper hand in a content dispute. That does qualify as a ], in my opinion. That user is clearly not working collaboratively with others, at least in this dispute about feral cats. ] (]) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Holy mother of walls of text... I strongly agree with the most useful feedback that has been given here: this is clearly the stage at which RfC is not only warranted, but arguably the only path forward if one side or the other is not prepared to give way. {{pb}} That said, I strongly suggest the involved parties attempt torecruit a neutral to word the RfC prompt and that the most vociferous single parties from each side (and I would hope you both know who you are) exercise some considerable restraint in not bludgeoning the resulting discussion (either in terms of volume of response or the length of individual posts). As in, your positions having been well established already on the talk page, you should each make your contributions to the RfC roughly on the scale of 1/30th of what you've had to say so far. Given the relatively small number of sources being debated, the existing diatribes are way out of proportion and, bluntly, well into ] territory at this point. And I say this as someone who isn't exactly always the soul of brevity themselves here at all times. '']]'' 05:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
	::Detailed analysis of material and claims based on them requires a considerable amount of text. But I've already done the work, so of course I have no need to do it all over again, especially at the same page. Any politicized subject (see, e.g., virtually any major thread at ] and its 169 pages of archives) is going to be longer than some people like, both due to the detail required and due to someone trying to get their contary-to-RS viewpoint promoted being likely to recycle the same claims repeatedly, leading to recurrent refutations; rinse and repeat. This is a common "try to wear out the opposition" tactic, in which refutation is ignored and the same claims are re-advanced (] fallacy). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
			*'''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)
	:::My friend, McCandlish, this isn't Donald Trump's BLP, and even if it were, what you have been doing on that talk page was clearly excessive. You added <u>''24KB''</u> (31 paragraphs!) of text in one post, most of it dedicated to micro-analyzing every aspect of one source, down to caption summary of the careers of everyone involved with it. At the time you posted it, it was larger than all of the rest of the comments from all other editors on the talk page in all threads, put together. All to support an argument that said source was more editorial than a typical MEDRS primary source, and should be afforded less weight accordingly--an adequate case for which could have been made with one paragraph, and an excessive one with two. Nor is it the only titano-post from you or VampaVampa, who I think only slightly trails your numbers. {{pb}}Look, I think you're an often-compelling participant in discussions, in part because of your propensity for thoroughness. But there's practical limits before it becomes a ] issue (however inadvertently). And whatever compelling interests you may feel that you have to press your reading of the sources, they can't come close to justifying the extent of the wordcount arms race you and VV entered into. '']]'' 05:13, 2 June 2024 (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)
	::::] refers to re-re-re-responding to every or nearly every post in a discussion (RfC, etc.) with many participants. It does not refer to producing a source analysis that a particular person disapproves of because of its detail level. And you're not getting the chronlogy right. That material long preceded VV's participation at that page; notably, when VV attempted to recycle the same bad source, I did not post a lengthy re-analysis of it, but referred to the one already done. My responses to VV have been directed at unrelated claims and sources put forward by that editor, and when they turned to circular argumentation that ignored prior refutation, I walked away rather than continue. So, there is no "wordcount arms race". We are at ANI now because one particular person, VV, refuses to drop the stick, despite there already being two (article-talk and NORN) discussions open trying to resolve the underlying content-and-sources matter. Whether this subject rises to the subjective importance level of, say, Donald Trump is irrelevant; it is certainly as polticized and emotive, attracting the same kind of misuse-bad-sources PoV pushing, which is the point I was making.<p>In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is ]. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)</p>
			:::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Two Unpleasant Comments===
			::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.
			*'''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}}
			== Me (DragonofBatley) ==
	First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally ], which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Misplaced Pages policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that ] said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that ] said that Geogene had engaged in ]. The ] policy is very clear on ]. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what ] writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. ] (]) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
			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)
	Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at ] because ] is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at ]. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at ]. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. ] (]) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
			: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)
	:I find your comments fair, with one exception. I wish to contest the reputational charge that I am "an editor who makes sloppy claims", which is a generalisation from two instances, for one of which you have found extenuating circumstances. (Incidentally, a generalisation is also at the heart of the content dispute.) This criticism of yours comes after I have already , in the spirit of seeking reconciliation. In my defence I also plead inexperience in raising matters for dispute; I suspect that many a user with no exposure to procedural affairs would have been intimidated by the sheer conduct of Geogene and SMcCandlish to drop the content dispute. I finally wish to use my freshly learned ] to note that even if I were to be wrong in ''all'' of my claims it still would not follow that the other party to the dispute cannot be seriously wrong in theirs. ] (]) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
			:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::] - It is true that whether you have been right or wrong is independent of whether Geogene and SMcCandlish have been right or wrong. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have used many words in making that statement. However, I have not found your argument to be persuasive. You haven't made your case, at least not to me, and I am not planning to read your ] again, especially since I have already seen that you made two mistakes, one of which suggests that you post first and think second. ] (]) 06:06, 6 June 2024 (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)
	:::''Suggests that you post first and think second.'' .. Does this imply a lack of good faith on the part of this editor ? ] (]) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (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 am not questioning the ] of ]. Posting first and thinking second is not bad faith, although it is sloppy and undesirable. ] (]) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
			::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::@] This is your 4th edit. Your 3rd as to add yourself as in training at DRN - something you aren't doing and have no experience to do. I don't know why you inserted yourself here, but there is a saying "good faith is not a suicide pact". There can come a time when good faith no longer be offered, and this looks like one. ] ] 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
			:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
	::::::I am however agreeing with ] in questioning the good faith of ]. I wonder whether they inserted themselves here and also at ] in order to snipe at me. I wonder if they have a grudge against me from some previous unsuccessful mediation at ], perhaps one that ended with them being indeffed. ] (]) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (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.
	* I'd like to share VampaVampa's latest diff, continuing to personalize the content dispute . I had just reverted a POV rewrite of the lead that was sourced in part to a likely ]. Yes, there are apparently front groups out there on the web pushing scientifically dubious views on outdoor cats. This controversy may not rise to Donald Trump levels of importance, but neither is Scientology or Young Earth Creationism. That doesn't mean it's unworthy of the Misplaced Pages community's concern. ] (]) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (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.
	*:Your action in reverting that edit is illustrative of the conduct that I have submitted a case against above (i.e. seeking to exercise ] of the article and to prevent the representation of legitimate views by falsely construing them as ] and ]). This is not the place to enter into content disputes. However, you are using your experience to discourage new contributors to engage with the article through ]. I am not sure why you should seek to draw more attention to your behaviour yourself, but that is welcome as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
			:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*::] comes to mind here, VampaVampa. What you're claiming as ownership is not, and in fact that claim is making it more clear you do not understand our rules and guidelines. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:48, 12 June 2024 (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)
	*::: {{u|HandThatFeeds}} What do you propose calling it instead? Eight of the last 50 edits on the page are {{U|Geogene}} reverting something, most of which in my opinion would have improved the article and the rest still had some merit to them. (3 in an edit war with {{u|VampaVampa}}, the rest from various different editors.) ] (]) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*::::I'd say you need to propose changes on the Talk page & get consensus ''first'', rather than just bludgeoning ahead to get those changes into the article. Especially since they appear to be an attempt to insert a POV into the article, something you're going to find is frowned upon in Misplaced Pages. Enforcing our NPOV rule is not OWNership. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:09, 14 June 2024 (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)
	*:::::Yes, Geogene is doing such a good job of enforcing neutral point of view that he immediately the maintenance tag about "Too few opinions".
			::::::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)
	*:::::When I made those 2 edits, I was unaware of exactly how controversial the article was. As you can see, all of my edits since then have been to the talk page rather than to the article. And let it be clear that I dispute that the article currently has a neutral point of view, which is a matter for the talk page and not for here. I assumed Geogene's claim that the source I used was a "front group" was so obviously false (it does not even speculate who is secretly behind them!) that it would boomerang on him without me doing anything. ] (]) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::These are good points.
			:::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ]&nbsp;] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ]&nbsp;] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
			*:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.
			Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
	===Short Summary===
	A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.
			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)
	0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: {{u|Xhkvfq}} (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. ], SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".
			: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)
	1. . {{u|Geogene}} reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). {{u|SMcCandlish}} edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and {{u|VampaVampa}} revert each other a bunch.
			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)
			::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)
	2. ]. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.
			::::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.
	3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of[REDACTED] policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to <strike>disruptive editing</strike> my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both[REDACTED] policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.
			: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.
	4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.
			: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.
	5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.
			: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)
	My own experiences involving Geogene have been <strike>quite negative</strike> (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up. ] (]) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (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.)
	Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. ] (]) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (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)
	===Closing Options ?===
			: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 think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. ] is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by ] and ]. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's ] or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was ]. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted ]. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a ], and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.
			: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 ===
	I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:
			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)
	#Close this thread, doing nothing.
	#Close this thread with a warning to ] for the ] of a bad allegation of ].
	#Close this thread by ] ], at least from this article.
			: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)
	What do the other editors think?
			::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	] (]) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (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)
	:There is a consensus that the accusations by VampaVampa about other contributors were ungrounded, and he admitted this himself. However, option 3 might be an overkill. If there are any problems with the editing by VampaVampa, this is their tendency to produce walls of text and argue to infinity on multiple pages, not just that page. But '''option 2''' seems to be warranted based on the discussion above. ] (]) 03:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:One further conduct allegation I have made was ], which I wrongly claimed was vandalism when premeditated. I think a cursory look would not have detected that, so I can cite relevant passages if needed. I was concerned with the immediate accusation of "fringe" views against me and with the caricaturing of my arguments and intentions. That said, I am more aware now of various policies such as ] and the requirements for gaining consensus, so I can partly see where my opponents were coming from, at least procedurally. Having since participated in some RfCs and talk page discussions, I remain concerned about the amount of leeway for editors to ] under superficial excuses, and I still do not think my defence of my edit had been given a fair hearing by Geogene and SMcCandlish before they sought to force-close the debate and escalate it from the specific edit to my agenda. But I am prepared to accept that succinct evidence-based discussion and RfC would be worth trying. ] (]) 06:34, 12 June 2024 (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)
	:<br />Wow, this thread is still open? I got pinged back here, so I'll respond. For my part, I'm not one to assert that two editors against one at a poorly watched page actually constitutes much of a "local consensus", just as a thing in and of itself. What's far more important here is that we have ] and they apply equally to this article as any others, and VV's PoV edits are not in compliance with them (or if you prefer, multiple editors have raised multiple policy concerns about them). The ] is on VV, and VV has not addressed much less dispelled these concerns. VV's position appears to basically boil down to assuming they have a {{em|right}} to make the changes they want, and anyone who disagrees is just some vandalistic stonewaller.<!--
			::::::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).
	--><p>As for ], VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding ], ], the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a ] issue.) Let's quote directly: {{tq|Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion.}} Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.</p><!--
			::::::::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)
	--><p>PS: {{tq|WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard.}} I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent ] flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:12, 12 June 2024 (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)
	:'''Option 2''' for now, with the assumption that VV will read the room and drop the stick. I feel warnings are most effective when people can trust the good faith efforts of the editor to heed the warning. If this topic continues with more walls of accusational text, then I think the topic ban becomes necessary. The late, poorly document allegations of ] are not helping matters at all here. Geogene and SMcCandlish should have the right to not be in a position where they have to continually defend against amorphous allegations. ] (]) 05:16, 13 June 2024 (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)
	:<s>'''Option 2'''</s>. <ins>'''Option 3''' ] (]) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)</ins> My experience has been that VampaVampa has, several times, assumed bad faith, leaping to conclusions about my intentions, alleging bias, and displaying a battleground-esque mentality. I maintain they are a net positive to the project, and have demonstrated that they are ], but believe that the warning for personal attacks should be construed to include a caution against ] and ]. It should also include a caution against ]. I'm often guilty of that myself, but ] ] (]) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (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)
	::I changed my !vote for the following reasons: I have attempted to carry on a discussion with VampaVampa. All that has come out of it is that I have determined that, whatever VampaVampa's intentions, the were ] They have ] away from criterion for source inclusion, and back toward whether or not a view is categorized as fringe. In that time, they have added of text in 25 days. The next highest, SMcCandlish, added 47,714 bytes over 9 months. (I am in third, with 34 kB in 20 days. I'm trying to trim my responses down.) VampaVampa has made 54 edits to the talk page. The next highest is Geogene, with since the dispute began. I believe VampaVampa is ]ing, that the walls of text are disruptive, and that they have difficulty discussing topics related to the article without hijacking the conversation to be about... whatever it is they are trying to talk about. I do note that I have not seen any more ] or ] lately, and don't believe the disruption would move to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. N.b.: I am involved in the discussion. ] (]) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (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)
	:::I appreciate your objectivity. I think your comment about battleground approach goes a long way towards explaining what I did wrong, and it resonates with what was said by some initial responders to this case. It is not a new situation within the "cat wars" topic that ].
			::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::You proposed to resolve the core dispute on the basis of what the review articles say. I believed there would be only one or two relevant review articles, or none if relevance was interpreted very scrupulously, so being concerned about nuance I made multiple attempts to clarify or qualify the criteria. What helped me see your opinion above as fair and objective was the simple step of searching the sources I have found so far for the word "review" in their title, instead of relying on my memory. There turned out to be at least five more review articles that are global in scope, which should mean that your criteria can be used to provide a nuanced answer to the disputed question. It does look I was trying to reinvent the wheel and I am sincerely sorry for having wasted your time.
			{{outdent}}
	:::Based on the acknowledgment that the battleground approach clouded my judgment, I also withdraw the charge of stonewalling (SQS) and apologise to Geogene and SMcCandlish for this excessive and I now believe false interpretation of intentions behind their comments about my motives and about the supposed agenda behind the view I sought a representation in the article for. ] (]) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{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)
	* I would like to be able to vote option 1, based on "I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point." If the charge of stonewalling is also withdrawn, I will be happy to do so, but for now I vote <strike>Abstain</strike> <strike>Not 3</strike> now '''Option 1''' as per situation specified, see VampaVampa's comment just above. ] (]) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (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)
	*'''Option 2''' and/or '''option 3''', as I think both have a role to play in this editor's behavioral development on the English Misplaced Pages. The need for civility by avoiding aspersions is not met by a restriction from their trigger article, and ''vice versa'' ] 13:30, 18 June 2024 (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) ===
	:'''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' would work. <span style="color: #000065; font-size: 5; font-family: monospace">‹]› <sup>(] • ])</sup></span> 23:39, 19 June 2024 (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.
	==Edit warring, BLP coatrack and POV issues: Harold the Sheep==
			:'''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.
	{{User|Harold the Sheep}}
			:'''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)
	At ], this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr ) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content. This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor. Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article.
			==== Uninvolved editors ====
	This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
			* '''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)
	:You should perhaps have also mentioned the discussion ] which, to my mind at least, resolved the previous issue. However, I'm happy to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. ] (]) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
	::The discussion to which you link was over the same issue. There is no resolution in that topic: you simply stopped responding. To you that (combined with edit warring the maintenance tag) resolved the issue? Behaviour like that is why we ended up here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Cambial, can you explain why this issue can't be resolved via ] or another one our general ] processes? Other than the brief edit warring (to which you contributed more or less equally), this looks entirely like a garden variety content dispute at the moment. I've reviewed the talk page and most recent archive and found a slight (and I mean very slight) tinge of battleground tone in some of HTS' responses. But ANI is for serious, intractable behavioural issues; it should not be your first stop immediately after entering into a conflict over content and before you've attempted any discussion or process to resolve the matter or form consensus. It seems you waited about three quarters of an hour after making your first talk page comment before you made this filing. Given that Harold seems to have been heavily involved on that talk page for some time, don't you think it would have been more pro forma and potentially productive to have waited for a response there before escalating the matter here? {{pb}}Please try discussion, and if neither of you succeeds in affecting a change of perspective on the other, and a middle ground solution does not seem viable or appropriate, then seek additional community perspectives on the content issue to achieve a consensus--including via RfC if necessary. In my opinion, your diffs do not come close to establishing strong evidence of an ownership issue under ], so please ] for the time being and pursue the normal dispute resolution process. '']]'' 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::: {{reply|Snow Rise}} I just now came across this discussion. I am the "other editor" who added the {{tla|POV}} tag on the ] article in ] with the edit summary "Recent additions use generalized anti-deprogramming rhetoric to color and frame this article, not specific to this BLP subject". This was after a long series of dozens of edits by Harold the Sheep (current ''Who Wrote That?'' tool shows HaroldTS had authored over 1/3rd the article content as of that day). At the same time, I posted my reasons on the talk page ({{Section link|Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3|POV issues}}), and the following day I posted {{Section link|Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3|COI}}. Though I engaged in discussion with HaroldTS, I don't feel there was any resolution. I found HaroldTS rude, insulting and uncollaborative. Eventually I quit engaging with the user and unwatchlisted the article. {{pb}}Last year didn't involve Cambial Yellowing, but it's the same issue CY brings up this week—HaroldTS adding generalized cult-topic information not specifically related to a BLP, and using a BLP as a coatrack for POV-pushing. Looking back on the prior month (Oct'23) when I had first tussled with HaroldTS at {{Section link|Talk:New Cult Awareness Network|Notes re Foundation for Religious Freedom}}, it seems clear he has been obsessively focused on presenting negative content about deprogramming and anyone who had ever been involved in it (despite common practice ending around 3 decades ago), and has been less interested in discussing content of the article subject or focusing his edits on the article subjects. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It's surprizing how thin-skinned you are about this. Both you and Cambial seem to be pretty assertive and uncompromising editors, at least in your approach to talk pages, edit summaries and ANI reports, but faced with a bit of pushback you're suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wife. The discussion at ] just seems like a robust discussion to me. What exactly are you complaining about? And the only pertinent edit I made to the article actually supported your initial thesis on the talk page. On the Steven Hassan page, the repeated assertion was that the recently added material was general anti-deprogramming criticism that did not specifically address Hassan. That was false, and passages from the sources, which were clearly specifically focused on Hassan, were provided. There was no response from you at all to that. A "yes that is specific to Hassan" or a "no that is not specific to Hassan", or perhaps a "well, on the face of it, I can't deny that they are directly addressing Hassan, but it must be some other Hassan" might at least have given me a basis for continuing the discussion. ] (]) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::{{tq|suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wife}} What a bizarre response – the misjudged sarcastic hyperbole reads like someone playing the victim. Your "everyone else is the problem" attitude explains your (not unanticipated) failure to participate at article talk. The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither {{tq|clearly specifically}} nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem. That's why three different editors have sought to trim or otherwise address the off-topic content you arbitrarily added to the page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::"insulting", "uncollaborative", "obsessively-focused", "bludgeoning", "article-owning", "edit-warring", "coat-racking" were all terms used by you or Grorp in your edit summaries or comments here; the rest was just a bit of humour. The content removed by Parakanyaa was not originally added by me, I just altered it so that it actually conformed to the source. As it happens, I more or less agree with Parakanyaa's reason for removal. ] (]) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: {{pb}}HaroldTS: Your show of incivility is astonishing with you starting right off with {{tq|it's surprizing how thin-skinned you are}}, since this thread is discussing you, not me. Likewise, there is no reason to lump me together with Cambial. It doesn't require lengthy discussion threads to conclude that someone will never budge with polite logical discourse. After I tried that and received a few insults in return, I had you pegged. It would have been better for the project had we resolved the issues last year, but instead I decided those articles weren't worth the hassle and I walked away. I'm not one bit surprised that another editor has independently encountered the same problems with your work and attitude. No one called me or tagged me to join this thread; I was browsing ANI ''and instantly recognized your username''... that's how much of an impression you made on me last year. I get involved in a lot of talk page discussions over many topics and I rarely remember someone else's username, but I did yours. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:20, 19 June 2024 (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)
	==Widespread disruption on election articles==
	Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the ], there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at {{article|2022 Italian general election}} and {{article|2018 Italian general election}} (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like and (exactly the same as was happening at the time of ] from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, ] ]] 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Wow, disappointed in several long-standing editors actively working with the newly made ] to go against a consensus that was established over an entire year. To start with calling out just one from the first article you linked, {{u|Μαρκος Δ}}, explain yourself. Because this is a really bad look for someone who's been here a decade. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::RfC was achieved through the consensus of four editors. Not to say that it should be gone against, but I think it deserves a new one, given how volatile this issue is and how many editors care about it, currently. ] (]) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::First of all, please mind your tone and remain civil and respectful. Do not ping me and say "explain yourself". I voiced my support for reopening the discussion, and that is all. I have not partaken in any edit-warring on any article, unlike several others here. So what exactly is it that you wish to "call out"? I have been opposed to the transition to the new legislative infobox since the very beginning, but have been railroaded by the user above you, and I am therefore happy to see others now wishing to reopen the debate. I voiced this opinion on the talk page in question, as is my right. What part of that, exactly, is it that you need me to explain to you in greater detail? <span style="color:#FFFFFF"><span style="background-color: #E30A17">]</span>{{Main other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=#E30A17|other=]|category=]}}}}{{Template other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=#E30A17|other=]|category=]}}}}</span> 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:] is an absolute shitshow right now. It should be reverted to the RfC-approved version when consensus was established, and then locked to prevent continued disruptive editing. ] ] 01:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I've reverted the most recent disruption and locked the page for 48 hrs. -] (]) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, you might want to do the 2018 one as well. Cheers, ] ]] 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Recommend adding the same level of protection to ] as well for the same reasons. ] ] 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::And what happens if the consensus has changed? ] (]) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::], but has it? A new RfC would be required (and I say that as some who favours the older, TIE infoboxes). — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::We don’t know if consensus has changed yet, that is why some people, including me, are proposing a new RfC. Whereas other, notably people who favour the new format, believe that it is unnecessary because they believe that new discussion arises from “extra-wikipedian reasons” (and I don’t get how that invalidates anything) and consensus has already been established (which also does t make any since, since consensus can change) ] (]) 07:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Indeed, consensus can change – so personally I'd be in favour of a new RfC. Note, however, that new accounts or accounts accused of ] are likely to have their comments discounted. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I hope I am misunderstanding and you actually aren’t insinuating that my account is sock puppet. That is ridiculous, as you can see that it has been active on the Italian Misplaced Pages since weeks before this debacle ] (]) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I am making no accusations to any single editor, no – I'll always ]. Regardless, it's undeniable that there is a prominent set of twitter threads that are drawing other users here, and a new RfC would undoubtedly be attractive to them.
	:::::::What I'm saying is, if you want to start a new RfC you'll need to ensure you can depend on established users rather than people who might have been canvassed. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Ok, I am genuinely sorry that I misunderstood the wording. Pardon me ] (]) 08:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I would like to challenge the slander coming from some users. The people who are noticing problems coming from certain editors are also wiki users or editors or contributors. You can complain about their means but don't slander their cause. That's unbefitting of y'all. The people who are rightly indignant that Number 57 and the sort are messing around with election pages, seemingly without reason, and especially WITHOUT consensus, are doing it out of love for a particular community on this website. ] (]) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I would like to point to the French legislative election pages for this. I haven't got a clue about the Italy situation. If there's an RFC decision for that it should be restored. I would however add that maybe a review of it should happen mostly on procedural grounds. Technically a consensus was formed but from...what...four people? There's clearly popular angst with it. I would reckon that interested parties should be allowed to level representations for that issue. AFIK an RFC decision isn't set in stone. ] (]) 02:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::There is a way to challenge a RFC, and perhaps the Italy one might change, but the edit-warring at the Italian articles is '''for sure''' not the way to go about it. ] ] 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I agree! I'm just explaining more of the situation. ] (]) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Number 57's edits to French legislative articles are particularly egregious because he cites a consensus for his decisions that doesn't exist. A friend of his cites a discussion (well, actually, three different discussions) where a consensus was supposedly formed except actually for those with eyes to see, the opposite is true. A consensus formed against his proposed edits. My personal opinion is that his actions are driven more by his opinions and tastes than actual consensus. As such, others noticed this happening, yes, on Twitter, but then most (there maybe be exceptions) of the revisions and edits came from wiki editors and those edits (going against Number 57's proposals) seemed to garner a real consensus. ] (]) 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::It's not without consensus. The last major discussion was held ] and led to the current accepted consensus. Of course, consensus can change, and I'm saying this as someone who preferred the old infobox style myself.{{pb}}But the fact is, the amount of outside interference going on means that it is currently the worst possible time to hold a new discussion on this, and what 57 (and others, including myself) are doing is just trying to keep pages in line with the last RfC consensus, until a new one can be made at a better time. ] (] · ]) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I agree! But 57's changes aren't limited to where there is a legitimate decision. ] (]) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I am only speaking to the Italian articles. If someone is taking the RFC from the Italy consensus and then trying to use that to justify changing infoboxes on election articles of other nations, then there is a problem. ] ] 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I don't know if this is the case for the France articles. Last I recall him and another person claim there was another consensus decision there yet refuse to follow up with proof/provided contradictory evidence as to this. ] (]) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{U|Talleyrand6}}, you just became indef-unblocked, after an impressive series of blocks for edit warring and personal attacks (pinging your last blocker/unblocker, {{u|Deepfriedokra}}), and here we find you being part of what seems to be an orchestrated edit war, and making comments that violate AGF. I think you are skating on thin ice. ] (]) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{yo|drmies}}. Thin ice? The unblock log reads zero tolerance for personal attacks and edit warring. Please feel free to reblock at will. Best ] (]) 02:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I have not being edit warring.
	::::::I made one (1) edit. ] (]) 03:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::And nor have I 'orchestrated' anything. ] (]) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::But you are casting aspersions which is a form of personal attack. Assume good faith and stop seeing conspiracies. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::I have never claimed its a conspiracy. I think his decisions are simply misguided. ] (]) 04:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::There are no conspiracies when there are facts. Beside the case of the Italian general elections (for which I believe we should acknowledge that consensus may have changed, but that is another discussion) most of other edit wars have been caused by number 57 changing things without consensus and then him or someone other who agrees with him appealing to an established consensus which doesn’t simply exist. ] (]) 05:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::See the case of the South African elections where there was the unilateral decision to change the info box without BEFORE reaching consensus, while the talk was still ongoing. ] (]) 05:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::I wholeheartedly apologize if my words came off as crass. There was no intention from me to tarnish the character of any admin. If I may be allowed a brief defense, all of my actions were and are singularly focused on the info boxes and related edits. I will be more mindful to avoid giving the wrong impression. Best, ] (]) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)!
	:(Maybe this is outside of the scope of this thread, but as we're here...)
	:Clearly there seems to be a question here about which articles have a consensus for TILE over TIE. Italy seems to have consensus for TILE. There's been much discussion about France – where's its consensus? What about other countries? — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Italy doesn’t have consensus for TILE, as for example in 2013 and before (until 1992) they use TIE (and IMO TILE should be used in Italy only before 1992. Other countries are case by case basis IMO (Eg. Israel should use TILE, but South Africa shouldn’t) ] (]) 07:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::If I'm reading ] correctly, Italy ''does'' have a consensus for TILE {{tq|for most Italian elections}} (though later on it says TIE is {{tq|off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections.}}). — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Note that the discussion you cite was limited to {{tq|the last two general elections in Italy}} and that the RfC closer clarified the result of the discussion as {{tq|for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018}}. That discussion was definitely not directly appliable to elections before 2018. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I clearly misunderstood, thank you. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Exactly, most (1946 through 1992). Between 1992 and 2013 uses TIE instead. Consesus for 2018 and 2022 was established last year, but a case can be made that it may have changed, or at least it is worth reopening the discussion. ] (]) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::One thing I will note concerning that specific consensus regarding Italian infoboxes is that it seemingly has a ] violation in that it was done with solely 6 editors involved and only 4 in favour. There was a short discussion on it and a new RfC hasn't been opened to discuss this consensus on it despite a clear showing in change on this consensus, including that very clearly ] has occurred, and consensus has very significantly changed. A 4 editor in favour out of 6 consensus might work on an extremely often not browsed page on an obscure topic, but for such an extremely focused on topic of a recent election such a consensus is extremely negative to have such a low interaction from users. ] (]) 03:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Stepping in to give my two cents. Just as I commented at ], I was alerted of this issue because of my watchlist becoming full of edit warring notices and the Twitter thread on the issue reaching my personal Tw TL due to it becoming viral. Off wiki attacks on Number 57 are egregious and should receive condemnation, but there are other non-insulting comments and arguments which have been brought forward, which are not without merit and which relate to my own experience for years in election Misplaced Pages (and, from what I see, to that of many other users). I appreciate Number 57's work to improve election articles for many years. We have both been engaged in clashes and in collaborative efforts aimed at improving election articles. But it is clear that their changes from TIE to TILE across vast swathes of articles (often supported by two or three other users) were, at many times, far from uncontroversial.
	:Indeed, I can acknowledge to those that keep reverting those articles that specific consensuses were reached for the UK (for future elections only, and only until they happened) and Italy (though as far as I am aware this was limited to 2018 and 2022 according to ], which addressed a particular situation involving the electoral system used for these two. Why was this enforced to other Italian election articles?). But while these were specific, they were often cited by TILE enforcers as some form of general consensus for changing other articles, clearly overextending the scope of the original consensus. For other articles, discussions were either absent, far from reaching a clear consensus or even openly hostile to change, yet many changes proceeded anyway, often citing other similarly-edited articles as justification (when these were edited by the same users) or citing some "]" (which was proven as false when you warranted evidence for it) or even justified on the basis of ] (which is ok, but then when other users were "bold" and reinstated TIE they were reverted for being "disruptive" or demanding from them a clear consensus for such reversion, something which had not been attained to secure the first controversial edit). Some other cases I can remind of involved reverting users that were blocked by other behaviours, with this being taken to the advantage of TILE's supporters to re-impose their edits as they were not going to be contested by those who were blocked.
	:Behaviour has been far from exemplary. Number 57 et al.'s proceeding has been to subtly and patiently introduce the TIE/TILE change (many times in smaller, lesser edited articles), then revert anyone who attempted to undo the change, most of the time with very vague edit summaries and in a semi-concerted effort (I am sure there is no "conspiracy" here, but you do not need one: it is not unfrequent for an editor to join another one's cause in any given article when they see it coming, without any explicit concert). I contested some of these throughout the years, but in the last times I mostly let them be as it became a tedious task to contest every single one of these and I was going to be reverted anyway. That did not mean I supported the change, just that I did not have the time to spend it contesting every single of them on my own. It was exhausting. This said, the issue was obviously going to explode some day as opposition mounted, the sense of imposition kept growing and as changes started spilling over to larger articles, and this is what has happened here when this was attempted at ]: the TIE/TILE imposition was attempted with a discussion ''still underway'' on the issue, without any consensus being formed, and this seemed to be the last straw for many. Tensions accumulated for many years by many users suddenly unleashed against the latest attempt at imposing a seemingly unpopular edit. Canvassing aside, when you have a whole thread going viral in Twitter, a Youtube video created and such a massive in-wiki response across vast swathes of articles, using sensible arguments and involving not just new accounts but also long-standing users, it is obvious that something is amiss. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::As already said, wholeheartedly agree ] (]) 08:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::You've put this extremely well. The best way to diffuse the situation is to allow for local consensus to return without the imposition a small number of experienced wikipedians attempting to WP:BOLD to impose a new consensus across hundreds of articles, then cite distrupiton to maintain it when others attempt to WP:BOLD to restore existing consensus. It all reads of WP:GAME which evidently leads to controversy and when left festering, to unnecessary hostility and distrust towards the small group of otherwise compitent editors. ] (]) 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Could not agree more, the backlash is unfortunate but an extremely clear sign that these years-long series of edits are imposing the views of a few individuals upon the entire site. I've dealt with a ] where Number 57 and aligned accounts acted in ways that toe the line of bad faith gaming of the system (stalling, misrepresentation, ghosting) to force through changes that they wanted without proper discussion. Much like many others have said, it got to a point where I just gave up trying to stop it. Almost more egregious have been imposed removals of "members elected" in the name of 'clarity' and 'removing clutter' — there is a common factor (a small group of users) in all of these disputes. This must change or these "disruptive" backlashes will continue to plague election pages (and the disruptors will have a strong point). ] (]) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Second all this. This whole situation has gotten wildly out of control, and will probably continue to happen again and again until something changes. ] (]) 03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::+1 on Impru's comment. ] (]) 00:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Personal attacks on Number 57 are entirely inappropriate, and they should be protected from a social media mob. However, I also think this issue has reoccurred repeatedly for a reason - there's clearly a gap between the preferences of a small group of experienced elections Wiki editors, and readers/the public as a whole. We have a difficult time understanding the opinions of readers, and they have a difficult time expressing it, but in some instances, like this one, it becomes clear that they have a different perspective. I think it's worth organizing a larger RfC aiming for broad participation on election infoboxes generally, so that the general community of Wikipedians can weigh in, beyond the few who regularly edit election infoboxes. —] (]) 11:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::There have been several public death threats made against Number 57 in Twitter: , , , . This situation has become alarming Regards, ] 14:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::This is all about the infobox?? Not the far-right, or anything meaningful? ] (]) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::There have been uhh...incidents like this over a map or maps ] (]) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Like someone mentioned further up, I think a sound course of action would be to let this entire issue rest for a little while, and then open a civil discussion about it in the not-too-distant future, once the dust from this has settled. Because now, for some reason, it is clear that a lot of users (and non-users as you show us here), feel very strongly about this topic, and it is stirring a lot of overly heated and, in some cases, violent speech, which I think we can all agree is not acceptable. Nobody should face harrassment for their opinions or preferences on any issue on site. I can not see this discussion leading anywhere productive in the current climate, so again, my opinion is that we should all let it rest for the time being. <span style="color:#FFFFFF"><span style="background-color: #E30A17">]</span>{{Main other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=#E30A17|other=]|category=]}}}}{{Template other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=#E30A17|other=]|category=]}}}}</span> 19:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I concur FWIW ] (]) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Aside from the one that is now deleted those just seem like lame jokes, they wouldn't fly on Misplaced Pages, sure - but we don't need to give any thought nor heed to them. Just ignore them and move on.
	:::A wider RfC is definitely in order given that it was a low turn out RfC hosted on a single article's talk page and the amount of people who disagree with.
	:::What ] and ] have posted is somewhat alarming about 57's behaviour. ] (]) 06:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Oh, so '''that's''' why ] was doing that. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 22:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	Semi-protection for all effected pages, would be start. ] (]) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
			==== Involved editors ====
	:Affected pages by #57? Or just the Italy and France ones? ] (]) 15:52, 16 June 2024 (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 ==
	So this widespread disruption is contagious: look at the completely unexplained series of reverts by ], who appears out of nowhere to throw oil on the fire. ] (]) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Basically the definition of an ]. Less than 10 edits prior to this and even those were six months ago. Then they show up now to do a bunch of repeated mass reverts and no attempts at talk page discussions whatsoever. I say admins should block and forget for these types showing up. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::], I agree, and I'm hoping some admin will pick this up--but since a couple of the reverts were of my edits (which I thought were valid given the existence of this very thread), I can hardly do this myself. Plus, one wonders if this is perhaps someone's alternate account. ] (]) 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::My bigger concern with Luentez is that they are reinserting incorrect/made up information into a large number of French election articles (in , three times). A mass rollback of their edits would help. ] ]] 21:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' I don't see any reason why a discussion on the talk page couldn't override an earlier consensus for ]; and in fact some editors are engaging in such a discussion. But some of the SPAs are engaging in harassment and edit-warring, and should be blocked for those behaviors. The dispute ultimately does come down to consensus; whether the infobox has pictures of parliamentary leaders is a topic where questions like "what do reliable sources say" will resolve the dispute. ] (]) 21:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Recommend''' a block for ] until he learns how to communicate. Also recommend all of his reversions be rolled back due to lack of explanation or edit summary. ] ] 23:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:*'''Support''' Proposal above. The lack of edit summaries are crazy. ] <small> (]) </small> 23:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:* '''Note:''' I did leave a notice on ]' talk page advising him of this thread, in addition to the warning template left by ]. ] ] 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:*:*'''Note''': I mass reverted all of Luentez's edits reverting drmies on June 16. ] <small> (]) </small> 04:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:*:*:Anyways, I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been out of control if it weren't for people throwing a barrel of oil into a small fireplace by making exaggerated videos on youtube and making death threats on Twitter. Can those people freaking get themselves together and understand that such actions don't help at all to resolve this controversy? Can they just go back to watching random videos or making shitposts on Twitter? (Also, weren't death threats a criminal offense? Why not report them?) ] <small> (]) </small> 05:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	****There has been consensus about how[REDACTED] infobox should look and how it looks in articles about election in other countries. How many people of election[REDACTED] community were involved in making this changes? ] (]) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	*****], there has? Where? Why didn't you reference this in your edit summaries? Where were your edit summaries? Do you have any idea how rude it was what you did? ] (]) 13:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	*****:Articles about the Italian elections in 2018, 2022, 1983, 1979, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1963, 1958, 1953 have different info boxes than the others. The format I reverted them to was used for a long time in most elections before a user named Number 57 decided, along with several other users, to change this formula even though many people did not express their opinion on this topic. This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be fixed as the wider community was not consulted. ] (]) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	*****::You didn't answer what Drmies asked you. Did you acknowledge the importance of edit summaries when doing things like this? ] <small> (]) </small> 23:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	*****:::You should also consider that, for example in the 1968 election, when the infobox was changed from TIE to TILE on the 25th of October 2023 nothing was written in the edit summaries, neither on the talk for that page, so it shouldn’t be a problem to revert that edit because there wasn’t an edit summary nor explanation of sort ] (]) 06:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
	I blocked {{noping|Talleyrand6}} in my role as a CU for off-wiki canvasing as well as persistent disruptive editing and edit warring --] <sup>]</sup> 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
			Diffs:
	I just spotted (and reverted) three cases where unilateral edits to change TIE to TILE were done (without properly addressing the changes in the edit summaries or seeking an explicit consensus for it): ], ] and ]s. One of these was done in April 2023, the other two were done in the last couple of months (effectively placing them out of consistency with other Polish election articles). I am particularly appalled at these since I myself opposed similar edits to these articles in 2021, recommending a wider consensus to be reached first (since they affected a large number of articles and looked like they were being conducted when they were not being looked upon). The users conducting the recent changes were aware of such opposition and that conducting such a change would be controversial, yet they did it anyway a few years later without even properly specifying such changes in the edit summaries. Obviously, no attempt was made at contacting me or other users opposing them in the past. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
			::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
			::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078
			::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
			::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
			:Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
			:These edits were suggested by the following user:
			:*]
			:] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Found another bad date in another article:
			::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ]
			::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Found another bad date in another article:
			:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
			:::Suggested by user:
			:::*]
			:::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
			:::::-]
			:::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
			::::::::::::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)
	:It's disappointing how many of these edits seem to have taken place without discussion or consensus, seemingly because of personal preference, by editors who have a long enough tenure to know better. I've added these articles to my watchlist. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Good catch, Impru. ] (]) 11:24, 19 June 2024 (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)
			== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
	Not commenting on the rest of the dispute here, but it does seem like changes to election infoboxes should be discussed in ] going forward. ] (]) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|PEPSI697}}
			I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights.
	== Proxy IPs conducting disruptive edits ==
			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.
	{{IPuser|181.117.93.235}}
			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.
	{{IPuser|1.21.121.126}}
			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.
	{{IPuser|112.184.132.153}}
			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)
	{{IPuser|180.35.109.165}}
			: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)
	{{IPuser|124.144.93.137}}
			::That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and ], you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. ]] 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. , for example, they say: {{tpq|Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. }}. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. ] (]) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. ({{Diff2|1269544073|1}}, {{Diff2|1269540089|2}}, {{Diff2|1269335610|3}}, {{Diff2|1269126904|4}} {{Diff2|1269098577|5}}, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). ]] 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Seeing {{tq|no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism}} is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ ] (]) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. ] (]) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the ] (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." ] (]) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments {{Diff2|1269580448|demanding}} that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. ]] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
			:::::
			::::@]: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are ''obvious'' vandalism.
			:::::
			::::Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, {{tqq|You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents}} - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you ''will'' stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you ''might'' stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. ]] 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{nacc}} {{ping|PEPSI697}} A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page ], ] and ]. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at ] and ] because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.{{pb}}FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on ] that you get {{tq|stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it}} when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been ]. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you {{tq|sometimes don't understand what some words mean}}, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.{{pb}}Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- ] (]) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to ]. ]] 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. ] (]) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future ===
	Related to ] and ]. ] (]) 06:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
			:I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
	=== disruptive proxy IPs ===
			::
			: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 ===
	{{IPuser|14.51.145.60}}<br />
	{{IPUser|106.172.176.108}}<br />
	{{IPUser|180.144.64.200}}<br />
	{{IPUser|220.211.71.134}}<br />
			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)
	Another Proxy IP list that are conducting disruptive edits. Related to ], ], ]. ] (]) 02:49, 18 June 2024 (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.
	:Both the content and harassment make it reasonably clear that this is ]. Courtesy ping ], who wondered in a previous section what was going on. ] (]) 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There is guidance on how to use the {{tlx|Talk header}} found on its documentation page at ] and also at ]. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in ] and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like ], ], ], ], ] for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at ] or ]. -- ] (]) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with ], but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get ] article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{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)
			: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)
	== JackkBrown further disruption ==
			::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)
			:::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Non-neutral paid editor ==
	{{userlinks|JackkBrown}}
	I don't want to be here, but it is clear that Jack has not learned from the prior advice, blocks:
	*] (November block}
	*] (archived without action)
	*] (one month block)
	Questions about minutiae ( (and a move request based on the continued English/Italian confusion, , despite being told multiple times that this is not what HD/Teahouse are for and to use the Talk. He has also moved on to deletion without of policy.
			@] 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 don't know if it's IDHT or lack of competence, but it's clear the behavior isn't going to change if it hasn't for the last 9 months+.Is there a p-block that would work since they seem to need a physical blocker to stop them from the HD. Thoughts? Suggestions? ] ] 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:{{Ping|Star Mississippi}} '''I did my best to improve, I also respected the maximum of two/three questions per month at the help desk'''; to claim that I haven't improved much is strange. ] (]) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:{{Ping|Star Mississippi}} : '''I never asked this question, as I removed it a minute later'''; with all due respect, bad idea to report this. ] (]) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Yeah, the ingredients thing was quickly fixed, but that kind of highlights the general problem: you're still editing far too quickly and sloppily. And that leads to things like making 20 rapid-fire minor edits to an article or non-constructive PRODs. You're also spending way too much time turning British English into American English and a bunch of editors have been pulling out their hair on your talk page over your intransigence about taking ] seriously.
	::It's really unfortunate, too, because unlike a lot of people who end up here regularly, you're ''definitely'' here to build an encyclopedia and I don't have any doubts that you have the best of intentions. With your Italian language skills and your apparent love of food, there are so many great contributions that few here could make as well. Valereee even suggested a couple places where your skillset would be most appreciated: ] and ] have so many red links and you have the ability to do immense good here. But instead, you're doing things like moving Pignoli (cookie) to Pignoli (biscuit) which don't make the encyclopedia better.
	::One good, clear, substantive edit is far more valuable than 20 slipshod ones. Misplaced Pages loses out when you're blocked from editing, which is why the community has been so patient with you. But nobody's patience is endless. ] (]) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|CoffeeCrumbs}} thank you. '''I have made many substantial changes'''; see, for example, the ] page, of which I'm the largest contributor, and the huge improvements in all Italian foods and drinks. The changes that bothered you represent, perhaps, 1/2% of all my edits. ] (]) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|CoffeeCrumbs}} I also improve articles on other nations and cultures. ] (]) 18:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'd been keeping an eye on ] (Jack) for a while, but had to take his page off my watchlist due to the pure volume of edits. I think list of Italian foods and drinks page exemplifies both the benefit Jack brings and simultaneously the unmitigated problems Jack presents.
	::::That page shows that Jack is the only non-bot editor for over a month, which shows how they contribute to underserved areas of the encyclopedia. It also shows the pattern of many small edits in quick succession (e.g., 6 edits within 3 minutes on June 7, 5 within 3 minutes on May 7). I remember trying to assist Jack by explaining what cosmetic edits were and why to not make them, and then a later discussion on ]. I am concerned that each time one problem area is addressed (whitespace, Engvar), the disruption seems to move to a different area.
	::::It's disappointing that Jack seems to spend so much effort on the form of Misplaced Pages (managing lists, copyediting, changing image sizes), tasks which any English speaker could do, and seems to spend relatively little time on the substance of it, such as finding Italian-language sources for articles, a task of which few of our volunteers are capable. Of Jack's past 100 edits, 40 have been to article or talk space. Of those, I found only two (5%) that I would consider substantial, ], and ]. There's nothing wrong with housekeeping Misplaced Pages, but Jack seems ill-suited for the task, and yet spends 95% of their edits on such things. I concur that Jack is very much ] for the right reasons, but their many small edits seem to cause frustration for other volunteers. If others are like me and have unfollowed a page because of the watch list spam, it seems like the best intentions may be harming the encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::The flood of inconsequential cosmetic edits make up a ''lot'' more than one-per-200 of your edits. A wide assortment of people have commented on these problems. And nobody is saying you don't make substantial changes, but that your insubstantial ones, and frequently ones that are not ideal to make with someone's second language, are overshadowing the very good contributions you do make. ] (]) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{Ping|CoffeeCrumbs}} I'm sad and also disappointed about it; with myself. ] (]) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I note here that Jack ] one of their comments, changing which one my post replied to. I wrote enough that the intended context is clear, but have seen discussion in which this could've caused great confusion. The move edit summary was {{tq|in the correct place}}, and demonstrates the same misplaced confidence shown in their copyediting and unfamiliarity with ] that are causing concern here. ] (]) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{Ping|EducatedRedneck}} the comments you refer to are part of the same comment, but I decided to write them in two comments (for more order); so I thought it was a mistake of the (kind) user who answered me. Try to understand that in this place (ANI) I'm in a panic. ] (]) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I'm sorry you are feeling panicky. ] (]) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Some of this seems to be about unwritten rules. How do we treat ENVAR? Does it matter if its a cookie or a biscuit? Which rules are more important than others? These can be hard for some people. ] (]) 09:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'm confused. ] seems very much written. Am I misunderstanding you? ] (]) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, but SecretLondon is talking about ENVAR, which remains unwritten. ]] 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::(content comment therefore off-topic and *sigh*) It matters because ] means different things in different varieties of English, whereas ] (even if primarily a North American word) is unambiguous. Compromise in cases like this is how we help readers find what they're looking for. Did I mention that I'm a Brit? ] (]) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Since I posted about something else, I might as well post here. I think what EducatedRedneck and others mentioned is is highly relevant in this discussion. However much importance various editors may attach to Engvar issues, a key point is that JackkBrown apparently (I have not independently looked at the evidence) is largely doing copy-editing. In that case, getting engvar right is far more important especially when it comes to introducing new errors. If JackkBrown was adding significant new content and in doing do introducing engvar mistakes; I expect editors would be far more tolerant to such mistakes. (To be clear, this would only apply to such changes. If they did that stuff while simultaneous copying editing existing content and making engvar mistakes, they'd probably still cause a high level of annoyance.) Copy editing where some of your changes are a net positive and some are a net negative tends to be viewed poorly for good reason. ] (]) 13:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::P.S. Adding new sources to existing content is another area that occurred to me but I excluded it because it's unlikely to lead to Engvar issues but perhaps improving content to better match sources as opposed to simple copyediting is another area where there would be more tolerance. ] (]) 13:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Right, and in a collaborative environment the best tact to take when something is difficult for you is to recognize that, and perhaps exercise additional caution when that thing crops up—in so doing, preventing yourself from making more of the same work for others over and over. It's difficult to make Jack aware enough of very specific points to change his behavior, but he does not seem interested in extrapolating any larger norms from what other editors tell him. It's an exhausting game of whack-a-mole, and it's beyond our remit at this point to solve the endless new puzzles of how to adequately explain a thing to him—often related to things already explained to him.]] 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I have a question and a comment. First, {{ping|JackkBrown}} has anyone ever suggested that you take your questions to the reference desk instead? Second, I was annoyed when you started an RfC over comments I had made at ] because it seemed like a recipe for drama I was trying to avoid, but while drama did ensue, the spelling problem I was complaining about did get resolved as a result, so thank you for that. ] (]) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::{{Ping|Elinruby}} you're welcome, '''the important thing is the end result'''; however, I apologise to you. ] (]) 23:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Neither expected nor required; I may have expressed some annoyance at the time is all, But seriously, well-done. ] (]) 23:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::{{Ping|Elinruby}} I'm very satisfied, thank you! ] (]) 00:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::So did anyone ever tell you to take your strange questions to the Reference Desk? They like strange questions there, and they once even took a heroic shot at "what's the word on the tip of my tongue?" so it's worth a shot. As far as the rest of this goes, maybe lay off a bit on the espresso? I dunno. Hope these suggestions help. ] (]) 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{Ping|Elinruby}} I think, and hope, that I will definitely stop asking questions, even important ones, except in the article discussion pages. ] (]) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I would hate to think that the thing to do is not ask the important questions. Are the ingredients of cannoli an important question? ] (]) 00:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::{{Ping|Elinruby}} it would be better to ''tagliare la testa al toro'' (] way of saying) and exclude any type of question, except in the article discussion pages. ] (]) 00:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I think think that is the wrong takeaway. Why did you wikilink "Italian" there? Did you wonder whether you should do that? Do you know how to look that up? See, sometimes questions are important. By the way, you didn't answer mine. Did anyone ever suggest asking questions at the Reference Desk? ] (]) 00:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Elinruby}} let's continue the discussion in my discussion page, the response space is really narrowing too much. ] (]) 00:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}}{{aye}} probably also annoying some watchlists. We can do that. But I think the question about the reference desk might be important; could you please answer it? ] (]) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:{{Ping|Elinruby}} if I remember correctly it was recommended to me, yes, once or twice. ] (]) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:: so why didn't you do that? ] (]) 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|Elinruby}} I did it for references, two or three times. ] (]) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I really, ''really'' don't think redirecting Jack's questions to another venue is going to resolve any issues, and RD is not going to be appropriate for all the wiki-specific ones anyway. We shouldn't be encouraging these kinds of questions at all. ] (]) 02:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Well either he is supposed to ask questions at the help desk or he is not. I take no position on the matter since I don't answer questions at either board. (well, rarely, at the Reference Desk, if something comes up like Vichy or medieval Church law or the like.) But I think right now his impression is that he is "not" supposed to ask questions anywhere and I can't say I blame him. But that way lies a CIR for sure. I told him (at his user page) to find and read the Manual of Style with particular attention to what it says about the dialects of English, because the editor talking about cookie vs. biscuit has a point. And to find a large and active project if he wants to discuss stuff. Dude needs a ] but there isn't one. If any of what I said was wrong then please let me know and I will tell him so, or just talk to him yourself. I am not certain whether he listened to me or whether I did any good, sure. That was me trying.
			:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
	::But at least now he knows that the Reference Desk isn't just for references. And that there are places to look stuff up. I suspect he has been told both those things before, so I take no position on what should be done here; depends on how often, maybe. But I really hate to see someone conclude that the way to flourish at Misplaced Pages is not to ask questions. Usually most people have to be told most things more than once, and I haven't really been tracking how many times it takes with him. But I looked at the list of Italian foods, and he was told there to only include "encyclopedic" foods. English is my mother tongue, but I'd be confused by that too. (But by the way that list should be broken up into sublists or something) ] (]) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
	:::No one would be complaining if the questions he asked were generally reasonable. Even if they weren't reasonable I doubt there'd be as much of a problem if they weren't very frequently just different shades of the ''same'' question, or if the answer wasn't so often "SOFIXIT" or "go to the talk page". Jack has suggested in the past that he struggles to control his compulsion to ask questions. Since the current HD/TH restriction was placed, he's been very good about limiting his questions there. Giving him a new place to indulge in that behavior just seems like an invitation for an indef down the road. ] (]) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
	:I am definitely in favor of JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions 'somewhere' (I have no opinion about the 'where'). That's what I and others had been asking for in ] and in his talk page when he started editing here. I get his constant questioning can be annoying and frustrating, but the alternative would be having JackkBrown being bold, piling up dozens of mistakes and creating a great deal of additional work to fix them (something we already experienced). How about setting a limit to the questions, eg. JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions just twice a week, so that he himself will be more selective between trivialities like cannoli ingredients and important questions? Or even better, finding a volunteer to serve as some sort of mentor/supervisor and be willing to answer his questions on their talk page? JackkBrown is sometimes problematic (eg. ) and his edits are sometimes unhelpful, but at this stage I don't see a situation requiring blocks or bans. ] 10:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
	::What I was having trouble understanding was why, if the helpdesk keeps sending him away, we want to limit his options on where he can ask questions. Most of the questions are on point. ] (]) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
	::{{Ping|Cavarrone}} regarding the question limit, I'm already respecting the limit of 2 (maximum 3) per month (of course it concerns the month, so they could both be in the same week). ] (]) 13:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:He has already had a question limit, and his track record makes it very doubtful if anyone will have the time or energy to mentor him (unless you're offering). Looking increasingly intractable, unfortunately. ] (]) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)		: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)
	::Indeed. I'm worried about a ] block. Jack is clearly both enthusiastic and has niches in which his contributions would be invaluable. The trouble is getting him to those niches. Gentle redirection has not seemed to be effective. Perhaps the community could come up with a well-defined area (e.g., "Adding sources or sourced content to articles") and obtain a commitment from him to stick to such an area? We'd have to workshop it if others believe the idea has merit. ] (]) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them.
	:::Like herding cats. I don't know if a set of TBANs would help make such a commitment more likely to stick - I doubt if it would otherwise, based on past history. ] (]) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			::#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.
	::::We should treat young editors and those with special needs with kid gloves when possible. It's clear that they are trying despite not being aware of concerns raised in a combative atmosphere. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			::#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.
	:::::I'm not unsympathetic, but am mindful of the extremely slow and disruptive progress of the measures regarding John*Pack*Lambert, and how long they dragged on. This did no-one any good, including JPL. Just a thought - perhaps you could express your concern in a practical way by, for example, offering to take on a mentoring role. ] (]) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			::#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)
	== Evru200 adding unsourced content ==
			*:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ]&thinsp;] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the ''principles of privacy'' still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. ]&thinsp;] 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Could we get an edit to ] for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== ] back to Andrewjlockley ===
	I've tried to engage ] on their talk page about not adding unsourced content to pages and adhering to NPOV reporting of election results, but their behavior persists. The opposing team wins in "a mild upset" while next time around the home team wins "in a landslide" although there's no RS that uses there terms to describe the results. They have also been admonished to follow the ], but they continue to make edits like this . <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 16 June 2024 (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.
	:Yikes. Just a brief review of their edits shows that, in addition to the NPOV issues, their changes introduce all sorts of grammatical and mechanical errors--random capitalizations, sentence fragments, etc. ] (]) 00:53, 17 June 2024 (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.
	:Links: {{User5|Evru200}} ] 02:10, 17 June 2024 (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.
	::So...I don't see anyone trying to get their attention, so what happens next? <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:08, 19 June 2024 (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)
	== Moving all body images into a gallery ==
			*: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)
	In , {{U|Devokewater}} moved all 32 body images into a new gallery with a misleading edit summary "tidy up". This was contrary to general Misplaced Pages 'house style' (]), ] and ].
			*:@] I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::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. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 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. ] (]) 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? ===
	The images are without relevance, having been removed from context, hence, IMO, also contrary to ] by creating an extensive, random, gallery without a rational foundation.
			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 consider this to be disruptive editor behaviour, not a content dispute. Editor has failed to respond to a polite message (13 June) at ]; I consider this to be passive dissent.
			::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ].
			::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
			::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile ===
	Devokewater also   with a bogus edit summary "Fixing style/layout errors"; this was self-reverted within 10 minutes of my specific mention when posting at User talk:Devokewater, and editor has subsequently randomly edited daily.
			<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)
	At the time of creating the gallery, the article was being surveilled by members of the Wikiproject Geography which made no representation, hence posting here.
			:'''<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.
	I don't intend to laboriously manually re-site 32 images, and I'm unsure if any utilility (TW, HG) would facilitate this.
			:the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::From ] {{tq|WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages}} - this seems not to be the case here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
			:::want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi applies] (]) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by ] - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. {{U|Bluethricecreamman}} has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether {{U|EMsmile}} was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* '''Oppose''' this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see ] apologize for the ] that occurred. ] (]) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. ] (]) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*'''Strong oppose''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in ''simple ignorance'' (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not ]).
			::That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, '''it fails a DUCK test''', and ''looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor''. What I see is a properly disclosed ] editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. ''These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors.'' Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't ] going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :]&thinsp;] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: <small>((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above)</small> 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, ''otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month'', 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that ''AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI.'' They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including ''very questionable'' off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where ] was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT ''recent'' contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a '''grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI''' (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month ''for over 11 years'')... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either ] or ]. ]&thinsp;] 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Maybe everyone gets ]s at this point and we move on? ] (]) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
			:::::However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for '''potential civil-POV'' which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like might come off is overly whitewashing, but {{tq|China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.}} but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does <u>call into need for a closer look</u>, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. ]&thinsp;] 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
			::mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. ] (]) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Strong support'''. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, ] applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that ] only ''strongly discourages'' paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --] (]) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose and IMO unthinkable''' They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an admin please instruct Devokewater to put this article to rights? It's now 2:19AM in England and I'll be off-Wiki for around 12+ hours. Thank you.--] (]) 01:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit}}: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.<br>I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. ] (] · ]) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Personally, I am much more concerned about '''un'''declared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet ] . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. ] (]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I meant meat puppet. ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Tentative oppose''' - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
			:*Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support a topic ban 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).
	:You’re bringing an edit from August 2023 to this noticeboard, when it is explicitly for “'''urgent''' incidents or '''chronic''', '''intractable''' behavioral problems”? ] ] 01:43, 17 June 2024 (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.
	::The article was '''very messy''', there were just '''too many photos''', (in reality many photos should have been removed, however I personally do not like removing other peoples photos) tried to tidy them up with little or no effect so in the end the best option was to put them in a gallery, see my edits on ] for another example where I tidied up a very messy wikipage. Regarding the talk page the comment made no sense it appeared to be an IP editor playing around.--''']]''' 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Devoke, despite the IP's protestations, I think this very much is a content issue, and from all appearances your changes were made in a good faith effort to improve the article. I don't even really have to AGF to come to that conclusion: it seems self-evident. So I think you can feel comfortable that no one is going to grant the IP's request that an admin force you to "set the article to rights" (the IP really needs to familiarize themselves with ] if they don't understand why their demand is a non-starter) and that no sanction is forthcoming. {{pb}}...But all that said, in terms of community consensus on the style, formatting, and general content issues, you truly are way out on a limb here. It is absolutely very common practice for articles of this sort (and indeed most articles with large amounts of photos) for such media to be placed in the main body of the article. Galleries are sometimes used when there's an excess of images, but even then the gallery is ''in addition'' to the in-line photos, not to their exclusion. I've never seen an article wherein the approach you have used here (all of the photos pushed into a gallery at the end) was endorsed by the community of editors working on an article. I don't know what your definition of "messy" is, but if it's "any inline photos", I don't think it aligns with the community's general stance on such issues, nor the relevant policies/style pages. Especially considering the length of this particular article. {{pb}}All of which is to say, I think I'd save yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble by not going to the mat on this one; in my opinion, if your force an RfC over this, it's a forgone conclusion that your style preference here is going to lose. Nobody is going to make you put all the images back, but if your goal is tidy up the article and arrive at a stable version, I would consider working with the IP towards a compromise version. Leaving somewhere between 10-50% of the images in the gallery but moving the rest back into locations where they have contextual significance sounds perfectly reasonable to me (what the exact proportions should be is hard for me to predict without deeper study of the revision history and the previous locations of the images, but in principle I don't see why a middle ground solution can't work here. If you really do think that the gallery is in the best interest of the article, it would behoove the article for you to reach a compromise, since I think the IP stands to win consensus if the broader community weights in. '']]'' 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Oh, I should hasten to add that, I agree that anywhere between 3-7 of those images probably aren't relevant enough (that is necessary enough to illustrate a crucial aspect of the article's subject matter) to be included at all. But any such cuts would also best be achieved via a consensus discussion as well. '']]'' 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks, when I first saw the article, it was a photo gallery with a wikipage attached to it, there was just too many photos all over the place, I tested different scenarios on my test page and in all honesty the gallery was the best option. Quite happy for other editors move these photos back to the main article, however I emphasise that when I started editing it was a mess. I never went to the talk page because this wikipage appeared to be "abandoned" unlike say Middlesbrough where there are very active regular editors who edit the page with passion.--''']]''' 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::In your opinion, which you didn't test by raising the matter on talk. This edit seems highly disruptive to me. I note that your comments in this section seem from your edit history to be the largest in byte terms in your 6 years of editing. ] (]) 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::] was under no obligation to raise the matter on the talk page if he genuinely felt the article was a mess. Like any user, he is welcome to edit the article. Likewise, if someone disagrees with his edits, they are also welcome to revert, edit, or question. Nevertheless, this matter explicitly does not belong here since this noticeboard is for "'''urgent''' incidents or '''chronic''', '''intractable''' behavioral problems" - as shown above - which this most certainly is not, being a content disrupte from August 2023. Take this matter to the talk page and let an administrator close this discussion. ] ] 15:59, 17 June 2024 (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)
	I've temporarily hidden ] and ] as per ] (No. 8). Because the images are stuck in the gallery there does not, to me, appear to be any contextual significance. {{U|Devokewater}} if you move those two back to the correct section they should be OK. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:This ''is'' a content issue, and even if it wasn't it is far too stale to bring up at this noticebard. Just discuss it at ]. ] (]) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::OK, attack me folks, I expected it. I raised it as soon as I saw it. The ''polite'' Wikiquette would've been to raise a talk section. Again, the ''polite'' Wikiquette would be to '''respond''' to an editor-talk section.
			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.
	::The article has been grossed-out by repeated input/changes over several years by a series of IP/sock/block evader edits (that's what the deleted talk section referred to {{smiley}}). A new username was registered as a way of getting around the block(s) preventing uploads, then IPs were used to place (at least some) images. I raised it with a cu off-wiki in Feb 2023 (from memory), but I cannot commit time to ongoing drama. Of course, I know the SPI and can recognise the tell-tale traits exhibited. I haven't followed up (in one edit summary I advised wp:deny), but ] (upload 23 April 2023) is an example of a sock/commons identity, and (diff, 28 April 2023) an IP placed the cropped/zoomed/contrived image showing how only Iceland was left open in the building (now gone). The sockmeister learned how to get round things.
			<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
	::Hope that generally throws some light onto matters - yes, over-zealous inexperienced editors = messy. I've just had to deal with an AfD caused by a newbie cut/pasting my 1500 bytes section content months back into a premature stand-alone article (thanks due to the bot for notifying me) - I got a 'helpful' editor shouting ownership and soapboxing at me......
			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.
			] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::IMO it <u>is</u> disruptive, drive-by, editor behaviour going against Wiki-precepts, which is why I brought it here. I am very capable but choose not to '''volunteer''' my limited time in this situation caused by a cavalier attitude; I will help anyone when/if I can, but not when disrespected by no response to a polite talk message. As the saying goes: 'there's only one chance to make a first impression'. Thanks for your inputs.--] (]) 23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
			: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.
	*Just to note that over 3 edits, I have restored the appearance of the article to resemble what it was before {{U|Devokewater}} moved the images into the gallery. I put one or two images in different places, left 7 in the gallery, and also made quite a few changes to the wording (including moving, consolidation, and in-text mentions with refs of things shown in images) and the references. It took a while, so I didn't also look at Commons for better or additional images. After the second edit, I started a section on the talk page (#Pictures). ] (]) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			: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 ===
	== User:Swam Hossain ==
			<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)
	* <span class="plainlinks userlinks">{{User-multi
			::::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)?
	| User = Swam Hossain
			::::
	| demo =
			::::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).
	| noping = {{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpOrRange|Swam Hossain}}|no|yes}}
			::::] 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. :-)
	|t |c |<!--If param 1 does not contain a slash-->{{#if:{{#titleparts:Swam Hossain|1|2}}||c64}} |dc |{{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpOrRange|Swam Hossain}}||nuke}} |{{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpOrRange|Swam Hossain}}||l}} |efl |{{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpOrRange|Swam Hossain}}|whois}} | {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpV4Range|Swam Hossain}}|1|rdns}}{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpV4|Swam Hossain}}|1|rdns}} | {{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpOrRange|Swam Hossain}}|rbl}} | {{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIpOrRange|Swam Hossain}}|http}} |bu | bl
			::::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").
	}}</span>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk||__NOINDEX__}}
			::::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)
	This user has been persistently submitting poorly made drafts. They are about topics that already have articles and suffer from problems like poor sourcing, poor style/formatting and even blatantly false information. ] is a particularly egregious example, which passes a fictional character from a historical TV series as a real historical figure. I have warned them (), but they have continued with resubmitting ] and ]. I therefore believe that most of this user's editing history has constituted disruptive editing, and that they have not responded or changed after warnings, so they should be blocked. ] (]) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I don't think we generally penalize new editors for writing poorly made drafts. In fact, they are expected and Draft space is a place for editors to learn how to write better articles. I dare say that there are more poorly made drafts in Draft space than well made drafts or they wouldn't be in Draft space. Editors are given a lot of leeway here. Is there something problematic about the content that requires immediate admin attention? Honestly, Air on White, sometimes it seems like you go looking for problems to "solve" that aren't that serious. Granted I haven't examined all of these drafts but "poorly made drafts" is really not a problem. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::This is a straw man, I am not suggesting a block for writing poorly made drafts. I am suggesting administrative action for repeatedly spamming AfC with bad drafts, including hoaxes, without showing signs of understanding why the drafts get declined. This user is just wasting reviewer time and shows no signs of communication. Their few mainspace contributions seem unproductive too. A combination of disruptive editing, lack of communication and incompetence after multiple warnings from different users is a sufficient reason to block. If you expect communication, improvement and awareness from this user, it just ain't happening. ] (]) 03:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::User turned out to be a sock puppet and was blocked by Girth Summit. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:08, 20 June 2024 (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)
	== Wikihounding report ==
			:<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)
			::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.
			::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)
			:::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.
			:::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)
			* '''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===
	I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users {{u|Panamitsu}} and {{u|Alexeyevitch}} don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I {{diff2|1190349881|told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around}}. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I {{diff|oldid=1226816539|diff=next|label=asked both users to stay away from one another}} earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and {{diff|oldid=1229497545|diff=next|label=openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions}}. That's ].
			{{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)
	Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. ''']]''' 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
	:That is correct, I have been following his contributions in the past day. This is because I noticed that he was intentionally replacing New Zealand spellings with American ones, for example {{diff2|1229523130|here}}, {{diff2|1229500774|here}}, {{diff2|1229499861|here}} and {{diff2|1229521533|here}}. To undo any further damage, I had to look through his contributions to find any more spelling errors he had introduced. Because I was following the user's contributions for a reason, I personally did not consider that wikihounding, but I could be wrong.
			:* To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
	:I realise that in the past I had taken it a bit too far, such as my comment on ] yesterday. I later realised that this was an inappropriate place to talk to the user and which is why I left a message on the user's talk page this morning instead. Because I had spent dozens of hours fixing spelling errors on New Zealand articles, and Australian ones, I became frustrated that my work was being undone. This, and offwiki events have made me increasingly frustrated recently and I have become agitated. This has been a problem with me in the past and I decided that I would take a wikibreak, but this has proved impossible for me and I am starting to believe my Misplaced Pages use is entering the territory of an addiction.
			:* 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)
	:In the conversation that Schwede mentioned from December 2023, I showed that Alexeyevitch {{diff2|1185048242|added the location}} of an image I took. It was of a nondescript petrol station in Paraparaumu, a smallish town in the country, and I had not written anywhere where it was located. Each time I would copyedit his contributions to Christchurch suburbs, I would notice that he would edit articles relating to the area, notably ], presumably with the belief that I live there and a way to scare me off. At first I thought this was a coincidence, but I made several tests and he continued to do it. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 01:08, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:Schwede66 - I said last month that I do not want to get invovled in disucusions with this user and genreally not to engage with him - but I feel like this is important.
	:A copule weeks ago I mentioned to Mr. Roger that "we later shifted to Papanui", a few hours later Panamitsu editied the ] article (I don't think this is a coincidence). This is no longer true that I live in Papanui - a part of my family lives there.
	:Panamitsu gets too invloved in the pages I edit (this started since the start) - this is not making editing enjoyable and I think he needs to realize that the main goal is to build an online encyclopedia not ] teachers feedback or criticism.
	:I regereted my actions prior to December 2023 - In fact I didn't even know about hounding, I do now and I think he needs to realize that this is hapening to me now.
	:Ultimately, I think this user should relax about following me on the Christchurch-related pages and I would do likewise and avoid editing pages the he edits.
	:<big>I think the best resolution to this conflict is to stop all contact between us immediately and entirely.</big> <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 02:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::That is not a correct interpretation of events regarding Papanui High School. Look on its edit history. 26 minutes before I made my edit, an IP had edited a paragraph and I then removed it. It was on my watchlist, added through AutoWikiBrowser, as proven by my edit on 14 April. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Uhh so you're suggesting an interaction ban? ] <small> (]) </small> 02:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Hi, I just read ] and I support putting one in place. Do other individuals also support this? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 02:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::The diffs bear out Panamitsu's explanation:
	:::* April 14, 2024: Panamitsu the ] article, which presumably watchlists it.
	:::* June 6, 2024: An IP the ] article.
	:::* June 6, 2024: Panamitsu the IP had been editing.
	:::As this means Panamitsu has been watching ] since well before Alexeyevitch's comment to Mr. Roger, while the claimed alarm is something I can understand and would've felt were I in those shoes, I think it's reasonable to think what happened here was not actually untoward and was just coincidental.{{pb}}What's harder to square as simply coincidence is Alexeyevitch's behavior regarding Paraparaumu topics, brought up by Panamitsu. Here's a timeline of a handful of events:
	:::* September 18, 2023: Panamitsu the article ], which Panamitsu had also done before that.
	:::* September 19, 2023: Alexeyevitch the article ] to revert Panamitsu's edit. A few minutes later, Alexeyevitch . Alexeyevitch's to the article was June 9, 2024.
	:::* October 19, 2023: Panamitsu of a Pak'nSave fuel station to the article ]. Panamitsu , to Wikimedia Commons. Neither the Commons page nor Panamitsu's caption of the image mention any location.
	:::* November 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch the article ].
	:::* November 14, 2023: Alexeyevitch of the aforementioned fuel station image, added by Panamitsu, that the station pictured is in Paraparaumu. still did not (and currently does not) provide any location information.
	:::* December 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch the article ]. Alexeyevitch's .
	:::* January 13, 2024: Alexeyevitch the article ]. Alexeyevitch's .
	:::Looking at these diffs, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Alexeyevitch's apparent interest in articles related to Paraparaumu emerged upon discovering Panamitsu's interest in Paraparaumu and then—more unsettlingly—possibly leaping to a conclusion that Panamitsu is tied to Paraparaumu. It's hard for me to escape thinking of the possibility Panamitsu raised: that {{tq|Each time }} {{tq|would copyedit his}} {{tq|contributions to Christchurch suburbs}} {{tq|he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that}} {{tq|live}} {{tq|there and}} {{tq|a way to scare}} . If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.{{pb}}Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a ''minimal'' sanction for such ]. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I regret those actions and apologized twice - I had to removed my second apology because he started to rapidly edit Christchurch suburb articles at the time and felt like every NZ article I edited it would be fixed in a matter of minutes, I suggest him doing this stops since this is obviously making editing unenjoyable - Schwede66 gave somewhat of a 'stop' message to him because I raised concern about this.
	::::I recognized the Pak'N Save was in Paraparaumu because I was there in 2022. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::], ] and ] are examples - I feel like there still might be a negative motive to their edits here. I suggest they slow down on this topic because it is upseting me. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I don't think Panamitsu's recent activity is wikihounding. Panamitsu's central complaint that got this brought to ANI is correct: Alexeyevitch changing the spelling in articles about New Zealand to American English en-masse is disruptive, and they should stop. ]/] is well established. (I note on their talk page they say they do not like New Zealand English, but that is not an excuse to make en-masse disruptive edits). Panamitsu reverting that wide-scale disruption from Alexeyevitch is not problematic; the wikihounding policy states {{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles}}, which is what happened here. ] (]) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I (or schwede66) inteded intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring which there kind of. And most (but not all) articles were stubs or starts which he didn't edit prior. ] was fixed by him - not edited by him prior to my edit. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{tq|I (or schwede66)}} {{tq|intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring}}: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to ] and ] as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? ], and experiments that {{tq|negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I emailed Shwede66, I think 2-3 times this week and all emails were addressing my concern for his behavior towards my editing, Schwede66 said that they had a large watchlist after AWB edits, so there was a suggestion to do that - Schwede66 selected a few pages and after editing ], we confirmed I was stalked. I edited a few (4 NZ pages also). I don't want to pressurize Shwede66, but the point was somewhat proven. My edits prior to these emails were using NZ english when appropriate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I noticed the other day that you also emailed {{U|Marshelec}}. I have his userpage (and Schwede66's) on my watchlist because we have collaborated a small bit in the past, such as on ]. Given that Schwede66 was contacted about my editing behaviour, Marshelec, could please indicate whether or not Alexeyevitch contacted you for a similar reason? I hope I'm not ] here, and if I am, I apologise. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 04:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I don't think this is forum shopping on your part, Panamitsu; it seems more as if Alexeveyitch may have been 'admin shopping'. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 05:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::My email correspondence with Alexeyevitch is solely associated with content suggestions and possible sources related to the ] article. The context is that I have some knowledge of the area from the time of my youth in Christchurch. Nothing about other users or other articles is included in those email exchanges._ ] (]) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq|confirmed I was stalked}}: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that ''you'' have been stalking ''Panamitsu'' and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing ]/]-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, ]. In the ], you for an article about a ''South African'' military unit and in your edit summary you called it {{tq|fix}} {{tq|a spelling error}}. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu of the word per ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Fair point. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 05:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I do recall finding the Otago Central Railway spelling mistake by looking through your contributions. This is because I noticed another spelling change and had a look to see if you had made more of those types of changes. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 04:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Not an admin, but jumping in to comment that from my observations working with them on NZ articles, that '''both''' editors contribute productively to Misplaced Pages. However they are maybe ''too'' productive. It strikes me that both take their role here as editors very seriously, to the point that it has stopped being fun for them. A major part of the conflict is that they are both heavily active in similar areas of Misplaced Pages, so there is naturally some treading on toes.
	:Some things I have learned lately that might be of benefit to both editors:
	:# You do not need to watchlist every article you edit.
	:# You certainly do not need to review every edit to every article on your watchlist.
	:# You do not “own” any article or area on Misplaced Pages.
	:# None of us are as important as we might think in the grand scheme of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is huge, and it will never be finished. You are not a legendary knight defending Misplaced Pages from barbarous hordes. You are an unpaid internet janitor.
	:# We are all volunteers, and we are all doing our best. Always assume good faith.
	:# Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to misunderstanding.
	:# If you can’t assume good faith, and you think someone else is the problem, then you are the problem.
	:# You can - at any time - walk away from Misplaced Pages for 24 hours if you are finding the experience less than fun.
	:# You do not need to reply immediately to every message or edit you see.
	:# Think carefully about what you say to others and how they might interpret your words.
	:# Be humble. Always blow on the pie.
	:Please do whatever it takes to resolve this conflict. I would prefer to see both of you continue to contribute productively to Misplaced Pages, rather than either of you fall victim to a block. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with both of you. <span style="font-size:small;"><span style="font-family:monospace;">'''David Palmer'''//</span>]</span> <sup>(])</sup> 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Yes, there isn't much to say from me from now on since I have already made my point here (and an apologization) along with a few other places. Both of us commit to stop following each others edits entirely. "This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict." And also stop contact (which I have already commited to). I understood what Shwede66 said aswell. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.<br />Panamitsu This edit is not a good look. It takes two to edit war. ] (]) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:I will keep this in mind Daveosaurus, and I regret some of the odd choices I made earlier. In the ] article I prioritized using NZ English (e.g "The suburb's main retail area is centred on Opawa Road" not "The suburb's main retail area is centered on Opawa Road") I spelled "traveling" once in this article but this was not deliberate. Although I did this: "further development in ], which soon began to <nowiki>]</nowiki> the suburb" it is rendered as "urbanise" for NZ readers I just did this to avoid a redirect. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 06:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
	Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. ] (]) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			*{{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.
	:I mainly hold responsibility for the actions -- Schwede66's suggestion was for me to edit ] and see if Panamitsu edits this page after me. All my edits prior to Panamitsu added a message to my talk page were using NZ English and now I use NZ English in the sutible articles (e.g ]). I think they've all been reverted since it's appropriate. I also suggest putting an interaction ban between me and Panamitsu to prevent this from happening. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I've had the impression for a while that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch around. That's impossible to prove with New Zealand articles, as they may both have them on their watchlists. Hence, after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes. Alexeyevitch edited two of those and Panamitsu tidied up one of those mistakes soon after (the South African article). But that did not have to be used as proof because Panamitsu then complained on Alexeyevitch's talk page, stating that they are following their contributions. For the record, I've had the impression that their contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day". Hence me filing this report. Also for the record, the situation was the other way around last December, but after issuing a warning to Alexeyevitch, that behaviour appeared to have stopped.
	::Alexeyevitch, you absolutely cannot introduce American English to New Zealand articles. I had not seen that happening before, but Panamitsu's four examples in his first post above are clear. That cannot continue as it's disruptive. ''']]''' 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for clarifying and confirming, but that's really a terrible approach to take. You know that editor X is correcting the spelling errors / MOS issues introduced by editor Y, so you agree with editor Y that they should introduce spelling errors in other articles, helpfully labeling them "spelling correction", so that if X corrects these as well, you can ask for X to be sanctioned? That's really way, way below the conduct which I would consider acceptable for an admin (or any editor for that matter). ] (]) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Understood, your message and the ] policy. I have a prefernce to use American English in talk pages/discussions and I understood that NZ articles use NZ English. This is behavior that I have exhibited these past two days is ridiculous and I should of known better. I am shameful and sorry for these actions and I assure you all that I won't do this again. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I note they did edit ] after you, again they reverted your incorrect spelling. Checking an editors edits for mistakes they repeatedly make us not harassment. Banning them from correcting you mistakes wouldn't be helpful. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Fair point ActivelyDisinterested, I understand what your saying here. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Maybe a solution would be for Alexeyevitch to commit to stop making spelling corrections in articles until they have a better understanding of English spelling variations, and both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, I amicably agree to these terms. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 10:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I don't believe it is as simple as that. Schwede66 warned Alexeyvitch in December 2023 and while he has stopped following me on non-New Zealand articles, he has continued with this Paraparaumu thing. After telling him about a month ago that I may report him to this noticeboard due to his thing with Paraparaumu, Schwede66 {{diff2|1226823059|suggested}} that we avoid contacting each other. Following this, I did make some copy edits, such as on ] (I had edited/watchlisted this article last year) and it did not go too well after I made copyedits and added a maintenance templates and Alexeyevitch told me to "fix it myself" when I didn't know how, the conversation diff is {{diff2|1225421398|here}}. I now wish that I had left it as that and not gone to the talk page. I also copyedited some of his edits on ] (I found this from the good article nominees on the article alerts). After "Mr. Roger" (Roger 8 Roger) had made complaints about his edits needing copyeding on suburbs, I added the suburbs to my watchlist so I could copyedit them, and followed with copyedits; this is something I now regret. Due to this Paraparaumu thing, I continued making copyedit tests to check if they were coincidences or not -- they were not coincidences.
	:::::I don't believe it is just an incompetence with spellings, but rather some dislike of New Zealand spellings, illustrated the {{diff2|1226654751|message}} on his talk page, his previous use of New Zealand spellings rather than American ones on articles, {{diff2|1226803140|him creating a word salad of American spellings}} and then indirectly {{diff2|1226812520|writing that he may ignore}} comments that are in New Zealand English after I informed him about comma splices. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::{{tq|Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion.}} (from the : Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the ]'s injunction to be collegial and empathetic with {{tq|Wikimedians of different backgrounds}}. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at {{Tq|mockery, sarcasm, or aggression}} against Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Alexeyevitch's behavior has clearly been inexcusably childish, and they cannot be allowed to continue acting like this. ]] 14:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I was frustrated at the time. Mr. Wilke told me to step of Misplaced Pages for a bit if I was frustrated. I regret this. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I just want to clarify {{diff2|1229722684|this previous reply}} of mine as I was replying to multiple comments at once. In the first paragraph I was attempting at explaining where I believe Schwede66's belief of {{tqi| I've had the impression that their}} '''' {{tqi|contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day"}} came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.
	::::::As conversation appears to have dried up, is there anything else I have to do? I'm not familiar with this noticeboard so I'm not sure if it just gets archived after 72 hours or an admin will close the discussion. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq|both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.}}: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently ''deliberately'', according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66—] and ] and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories: ]{{pb}}Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has , has , and has (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.{{pb}}With this level of hostility toward non-U.&nbsp;S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::{{tq|has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR}} this is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::{{tq|be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings}} – to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. ''']]''' 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I totally agree with you, ]. There is nothing abusive about an editor systematically going through another’s consistently non-constructive edits in order to clean up the mess they’ve been making. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 09:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at ] and ]. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. ] (]) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I don't think this is the sutiable place to post this... what would you like see changed? I hope there is no negative motive behind this - this is causing me distress. I am trying my best on these pages and I want a resolution to this conflict - I regret my actions, apologized and stated my commitments. Please let's focus on building an encyclopedia - I will add more sources/improve content to that area of interest.
			:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{Diff|Opawa|1182573815|oldid|See this diff}} compared to most recent - I think this is an improvment IMO. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			::I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Plz. I have learned my lesson and this behavior cannot continue... a block is totally appropriate if I fail and continue to make irresponsible edits.
			: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)
	::I will do better, I promise. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 11:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I don't know anything about you except that are presumably American. I think you should have a mentor to show you what to do and why. And it isn't just the mechanics of how to operate the WP site. As before, a good place to start is to slow down and focus on one task at a time, such as why some references are good and others are bad or unsuitable. You have an idea in your mind about what should be/you want to written and then go out looking for sources to use. Turn that around - read the sources first and use what they say about a topic. However, it does look as though that won't change anything because you keep repeating the same patterns of behaviour even when others point them out or make corrections. ] (]) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (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 ], not here. ] (]) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Okay, I understood. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 21:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{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)
			::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.
	== Harassment ==
			*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 {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
			**{{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.
			**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"):
			**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:
			**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.
			**{{ping|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 {{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:
			**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:
			**The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
			**The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
			**{{ping|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 {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|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), , , ,
			***Ibeaa: , , , ,
			**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 {{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)
			: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)
	I am currently being Harassed by Alex 21 who will not leave me alone after I chose to end a discussion with him.m cos of edit disagreements which we had which I am sorry for. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::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)
			:::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)
			::::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)
			== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
	:The editor made unsourced and edit-warring based edits at ], and I made sure to clarify with the anon editor that they understood ''why'' their edits were being reverted, especially after such unacceptable edit summaries such as that in the latter diff. Their contribution history shows a pattern of such behaviour. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
	::IP blocked for a week for disruptive editing. ] (]) 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
	::And the block was fairly lenient, given the IP's harassment of Alex 21 with a barrage of insults, for which the IP does NOT seem sorry. ] 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			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)
	== Editors removing formatted citations for bare URL citations ==
			::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)
			::: 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)
			::::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)
			::::: 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)
			::::::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)
			== Naniwoofg ==
	This seems to be the best place to report this, given a saying this situation is “standard practice”.
			{{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)
	Several (experienced) editors have manually removed formatted citations and replaced them with bare URL citations on ].
			: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)
	Timeline:
			:'''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)
	* — {{u|HikingHurricane}} adds a “current storm information section” (brand-new level 4 header section), cited entirely by three bare URLs.
	* — WeatherWriter (myself) removes the bare URL and replaced them for formatted citations (2 of the three bare URLS)
	* — {{u|Drdpw}} removes one reference and reduced the citation on the other, including removing the archival information.
	* — WeatherWriter restores the 2nd reference removed by Drdpw and restores the full citation information for the first reference.
	* — Drdpw reverts back to the smaller citations/removes the 2nd reference
	* — WeatherWriter adds a “unreferenced section” tag to the “Current storm information” section. Drdpw removed all citations present in that article in the last reversion.
	* — Drdpw removes the “unreferenced section” citation and re-adds the three original bare URL citations originally added by HikingHurricane.
	* — WeatherWriter removes the three bare URLs and replaced them with less-linked, but formatted citations.
	* — HikingHurricane restores the three bare URL citations and stated it is “standard practice”.
			== User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) ==
	Is this actually allowed? Even though ] isn’t a formal citation, experienced editors seem to indicate that bare-URLs are “standard practice” over formatted citations on ]. Per ] (policy), specifically ], in the {{tq|Generally considered helpful}} section, it states “{{tq|improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;}}”. I am bringing this to the administrators attention not to get someone warned or blocked, but since there seems to be experienced editors saying something different than policy, and every attempt to remove the bare URL citations is being reverted. '''The ]''' (] 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
	:The bare URLs in question are not citations. Their purpose is for the reader to be able to access the latest NHC products directly. What WeatherWriter has done is replace these links to live webpages with archive links, which obviously do not link to the live webpages. I have nothing against adding these citations to the end of the section, but they do not substitute for the live URLs. ~ ]] <sub>(])</sub> 02:37, 18 June 2024 (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>
	::Per what you just said "the bare URLs in question are not citations", then the section is still unsourced. '''The ]''' (] 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I have no problem with adding a citation to the paragraph from the latest advisory, with the advisory-specific url, so long as it gets updated (every 6 hours) with the information. ] (]) 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Embedded links should be avoided, ]. Surely these should be in the 'External Links' section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I don't see anything against citing the archived advisories at the end of the paragraph like I said, but the links to the live NHC webpages should still be there. Only including the archived references means counting on editors to update the references every time an advisory is released. Instead, the live URLs can just link to the up-to-date webpages directly. ~ ]] <sub>(])</sub> 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::No they shouldn’t. External Links/Bare URLs should '''not''' be in the middle of an article. They go in an external link section at the bottom of an article. '''The ]''' (] 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It makes the most sense for those links to go in the storm's section. Putting them in the external links section makes them harder for the reader to find and gets increasingly confusing if there are multiple active storms. ~ ]] <sub>(])</sub> 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::We're not a news site. We're not a weather advisory site. We do not need people to be able to get live information or updates on a storm. We're an encyclopaedia, not a 24 hour weather channel. No those links shouldn't go into the storms section as per all of the above. Having updated live information isn't what we're here for. ] ] 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Perhaps not what we are here for, but it is, nonetheless, what is done for active tropical cyclones in the form of 'Current storm information' and 'Watches and warnings' subsections. ] (]) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Agree with {{noping|Drdpw}} here. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, yet people still use it to stay up-to-date on weather events. I see no harm in linking to the latest official information in a storm's section. ~ ]] <sub>(])</sub> 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::That isn't how Misplaced Pages is formatted though. Misplaced Pages isn't a place for "current"/"live" updates. Even though you both seem to say citing sources is ok, both attempts I did at actually adding citations to the sections (current watches/warning & "current storm info") were reverted directly by both of y'all and you both added the external links inplace of the citations. That is what started this discussion. Basically, why are external links in the middle of an article being used as citations over formatted citations. '''The ]''' (] 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	{{od|:::::::::}} This may be a better suited question at ]: Are external links allowed mid-article or not? Anyone else agree? '''The ]''' (] 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:It is not adding citations to the end of the section that could be an issue, it's removing the external links. You can add citations to the end of the paragraph and editors can update them when they update the current storm info, but the live URLs should stay too. ~ ]] <sub>(])</sub> 16:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I may have missed something in this thread, but isn't ] fairly clear on that? ] (]) 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Yup, we're quite clear in several areas. Just because it's "what is done" doesn't mean it should be. ELs should not appear in articles at all other than maybe the infobox and external links section. There are few exceptions and providing live coverage of an event is very much not one of those exceptions due to the fact we're an encyclopaedia not a news site. We are not a place for people to get those kind of updates, nor do we want to be. ] ] 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Agree. ] (]) 17:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Then no weather article, let alone tropical cyclone article, should be presenting current storm information or watches and warnings. ] (]) 17:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Agree. ] ] 17:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Nothing should go into an article that isn't intended to be there in the final form and that isn't intended to be read by a reader in 10 years time. ] ] 17:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Current is too soon. Also probably incorrect, since editors do other stuff than editing, and a section like "Current situation" is likely to promise more than it delivers. If there is an up-to-date event-dedicated weather-site or something like that, it ''may'' fit the EL-section. ] (]) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::This is correct. They should not. ] (]) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::*Well, now we have a problem. Despite a clear non-involved editor consensus that external links & current storm info should be removed (as done in ), {{u|Drdpw}} has, once again, that edit, saying WP:Weather is the best place to discuss removing external links, basically ignoring AN/I and this discussion. Can an administrator do the removal? '''The ]''' (] 17:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Please voice your issue with weather articles presenting current storm information and watches and warnings at ]. ] (]) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Respectfully, {{u|Drdpw}}, this isn’t a WikiProject Weather issue, since it was raised on the administrators noticeboard. AN/I seems appropriate since this involves a policy issue, not a content issue. '''The ]''' (] 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::For a discussion on ], ] would be a better place. ] (]) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Wikiprojects cannot override the MOS, policies or guidelines. They have no say in this. See this very important part people miss about ] "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal." ] ] 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Implementation of policy in the various tropical cyclone articles will be a challenge. I suggest posting a message concerning the AN/I consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather. ] (]) 18:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I nominated all current storm templates I am aware of for deletion ]. ], ]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	For what it’s worth, there have been hurricane season articles for a good 20 years, including information such as the advisories and ongoing watches and warnings. If this is the official place to complain about it, then I’d rather Misplaced Pages continue to be a source of ongoing information. If there’s some official rule that precludes this, then I’d like to invoke ] for the sake of consistency and being beneficial for the public. ] (]) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	*Pinging {{u|Jasper Deng}} here as they have the current storm information & external links to the Misplaced Pages article. '''The ]''' (] 18:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			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.
	:'''Comment -''' The CSI sections have been discussed numerous times over the years in one form or another. Personally I don't like them much as on the whole they aren't updated with each advisory package outside of the NHC AOR, however, I strongly suspect that they would just be added straight back in by other editors who feel rightly or wrongly feel that they are doing a service to our readers by adding the information in. As a result, I am neutral on if they should or shouldn't remain in hurricane articles.] (]) 18:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	*Quick side-note: Per Hurricanehink, . Honestly, I am wondering if an ArbCom policy clarification request should be filed, given, at least what appears visually to me as basically a recurring problem of ignoring policy. ArbCom is the final resort for dispute resolution, and since this is a multi-year (multi-decade even) ignoring policy issue, they might be best to solve it and clarify if external links are permitted mid-article. '''The ]''' (] 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:*Just making sure, is the issue with the external link, or the fact of including current information in general? ] (]) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::To me, if I interpret the discussion correctly, it started out regarding only the external link issue, but evolved into adding the current storm information into the discussion. I would be fine trying to solve only the external link issue to begin with, since that is what this was opened up for in the first place. '''The ]''' (] 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Then ignore the rules for the sake of public safety and be ok with the external links ;) They’ll only be there when the storm is active. ] (]) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think in-text EL:s adds any public safety. Can't cite it, though. ] (]) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::“{{tq|They’ll only be there when the storm is active.}}” — That straight up violates ], also known as the ]. If you are adding information to the article that is garunteed to not be in the article in a week or so (let along 10 years), it '''should not''' be in the article. Simple as that. '''The ]''' (] 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Does this affect the infobox showing current storm information? ]]] 18:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Speaking for myself, I have no problem with a ]-valid link in the EL section. On WP promising "current" info, I think that's problematic and I don't trust us with it, to put it in shortcuts ], ]. ] (]) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Quick clarification: By “EL section” do you mean a true headed section named “external links” or as they are presented ? '''The ]''' (] 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::The customary EL-section at the bottom of the article. ] (]) 18:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::See ]. {{tq|With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.}} This has a footnote which states {{tq|Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Misplaced Pages.}} This is not one of the exceptions and the rationales so far put forward do not stack up with established policy and so these external links should be purged from all such articles in favour of proper in-line citations and an external links section.
	::::::@] Misplaced Pages is ] and we do not exist to promote public safety. This is an encyclopaedia. ] may be the place to go if this has indeed been going on since 2004. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::@{{user|Adam Black}}, I believe a potentially significant hurricane capable of widespread destruction would be one of those links. Same story if an asteroid was threatening to hit Earth. ] (]) 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Is there any precedent to support this claim? ]]] 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::If a significant hurricane is about to affect parts of the United States, the ] will inform those of our readers who need to know via their smart phones, radio and television broadcasts, and the activation of sirens in a far more timely manner. I am sure Canada has a similar service. Misplaced Pages does not exist to warn our readers of upcoming cataclysmic events and we should never be expected to provide this information. There are far more appropriate channels for such warnings. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::And indeed, the nature of Misplaced Pages is such that it creates a massive risk that it would inadvertently supply misinformation or outdated information in such events. The public safety argument lies, at best, in Misplaced Pages signposting the appropriate official sources of information for each emergency. It is ''dangerous'' to try to duplicate such information. ] (]) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::{{replyto|Adam Black|WeatherWriter}} I know I'm late to the game but since both of you mention ArbCom, and also considering it as a last resort, would an RfC at ] or ] be sufficient? Especially now with several templates nominated for deletion there will need to be a discussion on what information should or should not be included on active storms. ] (]) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::This has been going on since 2004 in part because the policy has evolved since then. In 2004, avoiding links to paywalled sites or those requiring Flash. In early 2005, with the main concern being to weed out spam/promotional links. In 2007, the idea of no external links in the main article text was first implemented, again with spamming or acting as a web directory being a central concern. Since then the exact wording of that exclusion has changed from "should not be used" () to "should not normally be used" () to the addition of an "exceptions are rare" footnote (), which in was moved out of the footnote and "normally" removed from the text. The discussions here appear to be the first time the question has come up about whether or not these sorts of links should be considered among the exceptions to the ] policy. That they have been used since 2004 and haven't come up in the past two decades seems to imply a level of appropriateness to include them in the manner in which they are being used. Regarding ], the bits that are relevant here are 1) original reporting, which these bulletins are not, and 2) news reports, which these might quality as; however, the NOTNEWS also encourages including "current and up-to-date information within its coverage," which these links provide. ] (]) 12:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::: (@ TornadoLGS) Consider another venue than a Wikiproject for a less topic-focused audience, Wikiprojects can be appnoted. This seems to be mostly ] issue, so ] may be an ok place. ] (]) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::{{replyto|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Okay, I'm not entirely sure that's the right place, but I'll ask about that on the talk page there. I mentioned the possibility of an RfC on the Wikiproject since they are usually handled at the relevant article talk page, but this would affect multiple articles under the same project. I would rarther have this done sooner than later since the Atlantic season is underway and this will likely lead to edit wars if there is not a clear-cut procedure. ] (]) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Those links don't belong in the text of the article, for all the word salad reasons that editors have noted. They should be in a separate 'External links' section, at the end of the article. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::At that point, I don't think we should bother at all with the External Links, it'd be too much of a hassel and too obscure to matter. People that are interested enough to read through the EL section are probably going to be monitoring the system vehemently. ]]] 18:51, 18 June 2024 (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
	Just to clarify, if the links were converted into citations, then that’s fine? It seems like there are two points about this discussion, the links, and the fact that articles usually mention current info, like storm intensity/movement/warnings. The current information can easily be cited with actual links. Would that still be in violation or not? ] (]) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:If the external links were converted into citations, that would not be a violation of the external link policy. That, , prior to the AN/I. Your reversion of that was the last link in the timeline part at the very beginning of the AN/I. That alone would address the external link issue: I.e. removing the “{{tq|For the latest official information, see:}}” and “{{tq|The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One}}” and replacing them with full citations. The formatted (full) citation you added for Intermediate Advisory Number 4A in is perfect! In fact, that external link for the “public advisory” is the exact same thing. That is actually what this discussion was opened up for originally. Per policy, the NHC “latest info” shouldn’t be external links, but rather in full/formatted citation form.
	:As to the current storm info, that is a different topic inserted mid-discussion. '''The ]''' (] 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Assuming that cite checks out, that takes care of EL-bit, leaving the current/news bits(). ] (]) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::The archive link to an archived public advisory is not the 'exact same thing' as the refresh link to the public advisory. Citing the archived public and forecast advisories and discussion necessitates that editors update the section and citations every time an advisory is released. For the NAtl this is very realistic, but what about other TC basins? Can we guarantee that the citations will always be up-to-date for an active system? No. Why not just include the refresh links at the end of the section? ~ ]] <sub>(])</sub> 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Citations to be used for what? Context matters. A "latest updates on local hurricane" website wouldn't be a very useful cite, would it? What lasting article-text would you cite to ? ] (]) 19:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Indeed, the citation url would need to change along with the information cited, every 3–6 hours, linked to, e.g. , , , etc., not to the refresh link. ] (]) 19:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I have actually used TWOs and discussions in articles to show that the NHC did or declared something, e.g. designated as an invest, a warning being declared. ]]] 19:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::As in "On friday, NHC recommended people to get the hell out of Kentucky."? Good enough. ] (]) 19:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::It'd probably be somewhere like ] instead. Regarding the invest, I used a Tropical Weather Outlook (TWO) in ] to state that the NHC began monitoring the disturbance. ]]] 19:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::And you link to the archive url when citing things. ] (]) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, if anything it seems like it should be treated the same as a book. One must cite the specific pages used to back up information from a book, ergo, one must use the specific advisory. However, it is worth noting that I was not using the TWO to cite current information. ]]] 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::(edit conflict) Yup, it’s called a ], and would likely be a coastal area. Also we don’t use days of the week, it would be, “Late on August 25, the NHC issued a hurricane warning between X and Y locations.” And then include that citation. It’s important because some procedures happen when there is a hurricane warning, often including evacuations, closures, etc. All of the current info can be cited. I don’t care if it’s external links or cite web, as long as the info is there. ] (]) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
	== Deb, admin, and violations of ], ] ==
	{{archive top|status=nope|result=If you have to hide the name of your account to make your accusations, you're clearly doing it wrong. ANI cannot desysop an admin in any case, log in to your account and send this to ] if you feel you actually have a case, or don't if you don't have one. ] ] 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)}}
	I am making this post ] to remain anonymous. I have concerns with ], a Misplaced Pages ''legacy'' ].
			Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: ,
	Deb has that she is , the author. She wrote ''Princesses of Wales'' and ''Princes of Wales'', by the University of Wales Press. The page ] was , an undisclosed violation of ].<redacted>
			The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].
	Another issue is the abundance of incorrect deletions, just see her talk page for the many just this year. Not happy with some of her replies, like . to be careful, and Deb's response was "." I don't see this as Pppery's opinion at all, but rather a GF attempt at ensuring administrators maintain conduct (this "opinion" resulted in an overturn, like many other Deb-related DRVs). Sorry Pppery, that musn't have been nice. This severely fails ], and . Deb then ...
			I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
	Final thing I noticed in a quick search were several accusations of ], but unsure about this vein.
			] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (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 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)
			:::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)
	For the aforementioned reasons, I find Deb unfit to be an en~wp administrator. This overall conduct could very well result in some kind of a block, but the ] is real. ] (]) 02:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			::{{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)
	: Deb does not meet the definition of "legacy admin" the community usually uses (that term more often applies to admins who are mostly inactive for long periods, not people who have been continuously active since). And digging up ancient (2006!) dirt and off-wiki evidence some of which had to be oversighted really does not help your case. And undisclosed accounts should not be opening threads at ANI anyway per ]. ] ] 03:06, 18 June 2024 (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.
	::IP editor, you dug up an edit Deb made in 2022, 22 years ago, where she declared her real name. You dug up the fact that she created two articles about companies she worked for in 2005 and 2006. Have you used your prodigious research skills to learn what the COI policies and guidelines were 18 to 22 years ago, and what the attitude of the community was back them about writing articles about one's notable employer? Have you discussed your concerns with {{u|Deb}}? Can you explain why you are editing logged out? Are you trying to evade scrutiny? ] (]) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::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.
	:::70.112.193.22 here (dynamic IP). There is more COI that was redacted that took place recently during employment. Unsure why it was oversighted as it is public but I'll leave it be. I am editing anon, as I know taking admins to ANI can be troublesome and I don't want to get too involved. ] (]) 03:17, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:::::In other words, you either don't want to get your primary account blocked for ] or your primary account is already blocked, maybe by Deb. There are several reasons that may explain your anonymity, but none that give us reason to believe you. ] is one of the non-negotiable policies of Misplaced Pages, and it applies not only to articles but also to reporting. ] (]) 07:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{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)
	::::::WP:V only applies to articles, not to reporting. ] (]) 13:21, 18 June 2024 (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. ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::What sort of dynamic IP changes your ISP? &ndash; ] (]) 03:19, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:::::OP/IP/logged out editor, you ''are'' very much involved now. Will you please answer my specific questions? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 03:23, 18 June 2024 (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. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, I'm not very familiar with all this IP stuff, all I know is that it changes mine so that is won't be linked to my current account. COI was looked down upon at the time of University of Wales Press, but you're right that it wasn't as much as it is nowadays. The other recent COI company was, however, during employment, when we expected people to disclose it on their user page / talk page. ] (]) 03:35, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:::::::Part of opening an ANI case is allowing yourself to be scrutinized in the context of the case. Using a IP to evade such is a serious violation of ] policy and there are people on this site who have tools to find people who do it.
			:::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::<br>
	:::::::I will take a stab at this 'dynamic IP changer'. Is your network provider ]? ] (]) 07:31, 18 June 2024 (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.
	::Does someone have Mole-Be-Gone to pour in these pop-up ]?? ] (]) 07:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	*I've been tagged into this by the reporter. I confirm my view that Deb has made several improper G6 deletions over time and that I consider the one case cited above to be a failure of ]. I express no further opinions, about the conflict of interest situation or otherwise. ] (]) 07:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)		: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===
	*:Hi. As you all know, I've been an admin for a very long time and I don't doubt I've made mistakes in that period. I've also done things that other administrators disagree with. I've done them all in good faith. I do a lot of deletions, which has made me many enemies. There was a time when, not only was COI not a problem but even advertising your own qualifications wasn't against the rules. I could name you several administrators who still do this on their user pages. I don't.
	*:I don't see that there was anything wrong with my using a published book as a reference. It happens that I wrote one of the few titles on this subject, and as I had the page number and ISBN details to hand, I used it. Another user took this up at the time, and there was a brief discussion, with other participants giving the blessing to its inclusion. The main issue with COI editing is bias. I'm not sure what the issue is with my employment but I am assuming this was to do with the fact that I wrote an article about ], who at the time was a ''former'' director of the company I worked for. Miller had been a very notable figure in the industry, and it's true that I only knew about him because of my employment, but if there was anything in that article that did not comply with ], I can't see it.
	::As for threatening another user with ANI, I mentioned ANI as a warning in response to this made to me. ] (]) 08:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the response Deb and I understand that past policy was different. I have zero issue with you citing your own book(s) in accordance with policy because you are a subject matter expert. There are multiple instances of more recent editing (1-9 years ago) however where the COI is stronger (when policy had long mentioned that you ''should disclose'') but I don't know if I can bring examples up without oversighters swooping in. You do stick relatively to NPOV from what I can see. I think you should be more careful, especially as admin. The conduct relating to DRV and replies to other editors was what brought me here though (note that I am involved as a Deb DRV voter). ] (]) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Are you the same person as 70.112.193.22? ] (]) 08:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Yes. But this will be my last comment here, as I think I went to the wrong avenue for this. ] (]) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Does this mean you still think that ] was an acceptable answer, even when considering ]? ] (]) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::: Hmph. It's blunt, but it's not ''way'' out of line. In fact, I've done when I once ran out of patience with an editor that was accusing me of terrible adminning. ] 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	*I can't not say anything, but firstly I must also own to my own COI. When I was a relatively inexperienced editor {{u|Deb}} took me under her wing and acted as an unofficial mentor. She tried to instil into me the tenets by which she edited herself and demonstrated every day through them—good faith and goodwill. Whether I was inculcated successfully, everyone will be their own judge—I'm sure a few eyebrows were raised at the suggestion!—but she tried. Anything that improved my approach was down to her, and anything that did not was on me. Clearly she continues to edit by those tenets. As has been pointed out, she's not a ''legacy admin'' at all, just an old-school one. And if the old school have anything in common, it's that they speak their mind. While she no doubt spoke abrasively to Pperry, it was hardly egregiously uncivil, particularly in the context of having just been told that, after ''over 20 years editing'', {{tq|You really need to do better}}. I'm sure there were... more nuanced ways of expressing that? Unlike many editors, she also recognizes when she crosses a boundary. For example, in 2017, having been involved in a ], completely trivial as these things are, in response—instead of just going quiet as she could have—Deb ]. Also unnecessarily as her critics noted at the time! And a 17-year unblemished blocklog...well, blemished. TLDR; I suppose my basic view is that what she is 'accused' of is pretty generic for highly active admins, and while I also don't see this as a malicious use of WP:LOUTSOCK—probably a misunderstanding of the policy rather than an intentional breach of it—the whole comprehensive caboodle in a caboose—from allegation, to response, to defence—is absolutely a ]. ] 12:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:Your link to the blocklog is malformed and so doesn't actually show Deb's self block so I am posting a correct link here so that it can be easily referred to: {{Blocklog|Deb}}. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 13:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	* Having read the comments and taken a cursory look at Deb's actions and edits, it appears to me this is an experienced, good faith administrator who occasionally makes the wrong call. There is not a single editor or administrator on this project who is perfect and has never made a mistake. Anyone who says otherwise is misguided at best. That being said, comments like the one directed at Pppery may not be a direct violation of ] but definitely go against the spirit of that policy. A friendlier approach in future would be preferable.
	:The only real policy violation which needs to be addressed here is the use of multiple IPs by a logged out user to evade scrutiny. There should not be any fear of retribution when reporting an administrator. Any improper action of that kind would lead to outcry from the community and probably a desysoping. Therefore, I can only conclude that in hiding their identity the editor aimed to avoid scrutiny of their own actions. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			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)
	Don't we have a rule somewhere that you can't log out to make complaints about people on noticeboards? Like you can't use a ] to do so, so why would you be able to do so while logged out? If truly fearful, the complaint should be directed to arbcom or trust and safety. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:31, 18 June 2024 (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)
			: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 ==
	:] was mentioned above. This behaviour does immeasurable damage to genuine good faith IP editors. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{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)}}
	{{archive bottom}}
			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:
	User is engaging in edit warring and IDHT as shown ], ] and ].<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b>♨ 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			*, , , : 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)
	:Probably should've gone to ], but it's a slam-dunk ECR violation nonetheless. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 06:49, 18 June 2024 (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)
	::Why had nobody been able to tell me exactly how the edit does not reflect the article? ] (]) 11:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Please refer to ] and the templates on your talk page. You cannot discuss or edit about the Arab/Israel conflict unless you have an account that is 30 days old and has made 500 edits. ] (]) 12:01, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:User seems to have resorted to personal attacks ] (]) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::], 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)
	::Your removal of their comment from their own talk page was unnecessary and predictably aggravating to the situation. I wouldn't say that ending a conversation with {{tq|Whatever you say keyboard warrior.}} really constitutes a personal attack requiring deletion from their own talk. It's incivility and name-calling at worst. ] (]) 15:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::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)
	:::I agree, as the user seems to want attention solely and aggravation won't help. Incivility describes it better as I couldn't find the exact word ] (]) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Sometimes it's best to let people scream into the void. ] (]) 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			== On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] ==
	== User:Sathyalingam - Repeated edit warring without communication ==
	* {{userlinks|Sathyalingam}}
			I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.
	There seems to be four blocks by C.Fred from 17 April, 2022 for Disruptive editing/ edit warring. Sathyalingam is now edit warring at ]. There are no edit summaries or responses to the talk page discussion that I initiated and I see that they haven't used their talk page to communicate even once since 2021. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	:Not just edit warring, adding election boxes for election taking place in '''2026''' so Sathyalingam is here for the long haul. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 07:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	* A note about the four blocks. They were:
	*# 17 Apr 2022: 72 hour partial block from article namespace: ''Edit warring - changing sourced information without explanation or discussion''
	*# 5 Jun 2022: 1 week siteblock: ''Disruptive editing - persistent changes to movie grosses without sources''
	*# 7 Jul 2022: 1 month partial block from article namespace: ''Disruptive editing - refusal to use edit summaries or explain edits - this allows user to request edits via talk page and communicate''
	*# 11 Sep 2022: 3 month partial block from ]: ''Edit warring - persistent addition of problematic content with no attempt to discuss''
	: Since there is a pattern of the user refusing to discuss, I think at this point, if there are problematic edits with no discussion, an indefinite siteblock is in order. —''']''' (]) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			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.
	== Someone is having a bad day ==
			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.
			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.
	Could someone block please so that they can do something more productive with their time? Multiple ] violations with a dash of harassment and vandalism. ] (]) 07:34, 18 June 2024 (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.
	:{{redact}} ] (]) 07:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Yes please, besides vandalism at and , we have this . Ah now we have it here too. ] (]) 07:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::dealt with by ] with a block. Some edits reverted and others are hidden. ] (]) 08:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::{{done}}. There are some edits which I think are skirting the lines, therefore I didn't revdel those but if any other admin think otherwise, go ahead and revdel accordingly. ] (]) 08:49, 18 June 2024 (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.
	==] is continually and incorrectly deleting content from ]==
	{{atop|Content dispute, exacerbated by an enthusiastic new user not understanding our policies yet. ] needs to discuss sourcing on the article talk pages, so they can learn our policies. Otherwise, this could result in blocks for violating our rules. <small>(])</small> — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}}
	] is not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting factual content, multiple times now. I am doing my best to contribute to the Wiki project for my hometown, and have put alot of time doing the best job I can. The issue here is not citation but the deletion. For example, for "Notable People".
			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
	Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, does ] instead believes that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that? And if these other articles are incorrect (which they are)? Some articles say Sydney - AND, Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney!!!
			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.
	Furthermore, ] - ] deleted from ] stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too. You clearly are attacking and discriminating this article and it '''must stop'''.
			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.
	This is not a good enough reason, to form the basis of the content deletion, especially when I can give you addresses and school photos and birthday parties of these notable people, who lived in this area. Your reason being "his/her article doesn't mention this suburb . Rm under WP:BURDEN" - You should update his/her article then, and stop being a ] on this article!
			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)
	Also, I don't appreciate ]'s tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And does ] believe that have the right to come and just delete content that is correct, without researching before they delete? That is vandalism. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: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.
	:can you provide some diffs? It's not clear at all which articles you're talking about. ] (]) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			:{{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 ]."}}
	::Appears to be a content dispute. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			: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.
	:::is it possible for you to please check and compare the history?
			: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.
	:::Notable people are being removed when they are from Greystanes.
			: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)
	:::The last edit for example:
			:On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::]</nowiki>]] - ] deleted from ] stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... '''But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too.'''
	:::He is removing people whose articles say they are from Sydney. Greystanes is in Sydney.
			== User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits ==
	:::These articles might be wrong, and why should that be the basis of the facts in this article? ] (]) 09:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::hey Scope Creep, there seems to be an error on the page, from a change you made. I don't want to touch it though, in case you are in the middle of something??? ] (]) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Really sloppy referencing without and incorrect page numbering. I've fixed what I can. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 10:11, 18 June 2024 (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}}
	:::::] is a very very new editor. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 10:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I am now Scope Creep, and thank you for your help with this, but there is still an error. Your reference is showing on the frontend.
			Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?
	:::::The grand mansion was demolished in 1946, but its gates still remain intact on Greystanes Road.ref"Cumberland Historical Timeline" (PDF). Cumberland City Council. p. 31.<nowiki></ref></nowiki> ] (]) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::new* ] (]) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (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.
	::::::I just fixed that reference up. was missing the opening <ref ] (]) 10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::The very issue for why I posted this to begin with, <nowiki>]</nowiki>] goes and starts deleting notable people as well. I just don't get why content get's removed? Carissa Walford has content all over the net about being from Greystanes. Do I need to update people's bio's too? No thanks. But just cause other articles on Wiki are incorrect, does that mean we use them as the basis on the way moving forward, so that all future content remains incorrect?
			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 am happy to address the citations and delete what cannot be referenced. But the notable people should be researched by the one wanting to delete it, and then if it's found that the person is from Greystanes, the other article should be update. True?
	:::Also, Greystanes IS Sydney. So if it says someone is from Sydney, that is actually impossible. Because Sydney is not a suburb. Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney, so why delete it, if someone's article says "Sydney". It doesn't make my notable people list incorrect. ] (]) 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			* This sequence of edits to ]:
	::::You are getting close to being blocked, the onus is on the person adding the content to include the source. ] (]) 10:34, 18 June 2024 (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}}
	:::::being blocked? For what? More threats. I haven't said or done anything wrong to you, and instead of threatening, stop being aggressive and educate! We all contribute to Wiki, you are not an owner, but a contributor like myself.
			** {{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}}
	:::::All of my citations added for Notable People were removed by Scope Creep, because it's ridiculous and you know it. Show me an article where notable people are referenced? If your Wiki articles do not match my new content, then it is your responsibility if you like, to research that person and update and reference that specific article. Not delete proper and good content from my edits.
			* {{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''
	:::::Have a think about it. Because you are not making much sense. ] (]) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			* {{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''
	::::::You are not being threatened, merely informed that your behaviour is such that you may receive a block from an administrator.
	::::::If you'd like to see an article where notable people are referenced visit ]. This is how all articles should look. '''All''' content on Misplaced Pages '''must''' be backed up by a reliable in-line citation, except patently obvious stuff (e.g. we wouldn't provide a reference for "the sky is blue"). Just because other editors have failed to provide references elsewhere does not excuse policy violations elsewhere. ] states {{tq|Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.}} ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 10:48, 18 June 2024 (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.
	::::You are in violation of the ]. I can see five reverts by you in the past hour alone. You must stop reverting other editors. I know it can be frustrating seeing your work reverted, but violating Misplaced Pages policy may lead to a partial block, where you can't edit specific pages, or a full block, where you can't edit at all, even if you weren't aware of the policy. However, I can see that your latest revert came ''after'' @] issued you with a warning for edit warring.
	::::My best advice would be, take a break from this article for now. Take the time to read some of Misplaced Pages's policies, particularly ], ] and ] then come back to this article and make the changes in such a way that it is unlikely to be challenged by another editor. Theroadislong is correct above in saying that the onus is on you to provide an in-line citation for any content you add to an article. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 10:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			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)
	:::::Ok no worries, I actually didn't see my talk page, and only just saw it now.
			: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)
	:::::I will provide citations on all notable people then.
			::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)
	:::::Thanks to all for your time on this. I will sort it out.
			: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)
	:::::Instead of deleting, can maybe next time, there be a Citation Needed added?
			::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)
	:::::And also, ] was deleted as a notable person, but her article clearly says she is from Greystanes. Which is what really frustrated me the most. ] (]) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (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)
	::::::Unfortunately, her article doesn't clearly say she is from Greystanes:
			::::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)
	:::::::{{tq|Farrugia was born and raised in the western suburbs of Sydney in New South Wales. Her parents are of Maltese descent and she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes.}}
			:::::@] 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)
	::::::It only mentions that she attended a primary school in Greystanes, not that she is from Greystanes. Attending a primary school in an area does not necessarily mean someone is from that area. For example, my close friend grew up in the Earnock area of their hometown but attended a primary school in Hillhouse.
			::::::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)
	::::::I prefer to use cn tags and try to return after a few weeks to remove the content if it hasn't been sourced, but editors are free to remove unsourced content immediately. In fact, there is an ] going on right now in which the objective is to either provide sources for content tagged with citation needed tags or remove the unsourced statement entirely, so you may find that this month an unsourced statement with a tag is somewhat more likely to be removed. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 11:11, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:::::::Thanks Adam mate, understood. I have a job on my hands it seems!@]
			*{{tq|benefit of the doubt}}{{snd}}Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? ]] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::I will sort all the citations out. Thanks for the clarification and for being nice and civil about it all, and sorry for ruffling some people's feathers. ] (]) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (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)
	::::::::You are welcome and I wouldn't worry too much about ruffling feathers. We can all be guilty of it from time to time and as long as you follow Misplaced Pages policy going forward there shouldn't be any issues.
			::that’s… not an insult? just an observation ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::I haven't taken an in-depth look at your edits, but if any of the notable people you were trying to add are more historic then ] can be an excellent source for pre-1950s coverage of Australians. There are several more recent newspapers and magazines on Trove as well, but there are over 1,800 digitised Australian publications dating from the early 19th century to roughly the mid-50's. If you need any help finding references, feel free to post a message on my talk page and I'll help out if I can. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 12:26, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:::::::::As an editor of 17 years experience and over 90,000 edits this is a hilarious ANI frankly, I've never been accused of vandalism before. The ANI has only focussed attention of the practices of Annamaria.dmrt as per ]. They clearly need to read ], ], ] and ]. I agree that of this aggressive ownership and failure to abide by Misplaced Pages policy by Annamaria.dmrt is getting them close to be being blocked. I'll let admins decide that. If an article says someone is from Sydney that does not automatically mean they are from Greystanes. All notable people must have a verified source that they actually lived in this suburb. Finally, Annamaria.dmrt would be best served by editing a broader range of articles to better understand how Misplaced Pages works. ] (]) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (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)
	:::::::::: I appreciate this report was originally about you, but it does seem as though the user has accepted the advice and explanations given and they will hopefully be contributing in-line with Misplaced Pages policy from now on so I think it would be best just to let this matter lie, unless any further problematic behaviour occurs. I would definitely agree with your suggestion, however, editing a broader range of articles would I'm sure provide a better understanding of our policies and guidelines. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) <small>*reply moved here by ] (]) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (])</small>
			:::::“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::I thought you were just trying to make life hard and to just in some ways, prove a point ]. And cause I took you the wrong way, I got off on the wrong foot in the beginning by being abrupt in my feedback to you. I now fully understand the situation, and whilst it is really frustrating, and time consuming, I will get this article to the standard it needs. It makes life hard when you and ] still continue to delete details on the page, and dont' put a citation tag. Cause I want to do my best to have the opportunity to cite every notable person, but instead I need to compare revisions, to find who has been removed.
			::::::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)
	::::::::::So, all in all, thank you everyone for your time. Sorry for false accusations against you LibStar when you were correct. My bad on that. And it's also annoying that facts can be lost forever, if they cannot be properly cited via online sources, I have alot of other info on the area and surrounding areas, that there are no online sources for. It is original content, like old colonial letters that have facts about the area in early settlement. And it hasn't been documented elsewhere before. It would have been good to contribute to Misplaced Pages with these facts, but I cannot cite them. This for me is a shock. Even people who are from Sydney, and from Greystanes, if it is not anywhere else online, well then, we cannot add it. I received a confirmation from Brad McGee yesterday on whatsapp, that I can add Greystanes to his personal article and to this Greystanes article. But again, how do i cite that.
			: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)
	::::::::::Anyway, I will do my best to cite all i can, and what get's deleted, get's deleted.
			:I'm suspecting trolling, here. ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thanks again, sorry about all the fuss, especially to LibStar. Thanks for being really kind and civil about it all @]. ] (]) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (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)
	:::::::::::I did a thorough Google search for the names I removed and nothing came up, sources do not have to be online but they do need to have been published. You cannot add Bradley McGee to the article without a source either, personal communication is NOT encouraged or useful, unless he can give you a suitable source. ] (]) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (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)
	::::::::::::@] but you've removed Frank Cefai and Lawrence Dimech, who have numerous online sources, indicating that they are notable to the community. Does a person need to have a Misplaced Pages article dedicated to them, to be in the Notable People list? ] (]) 14:32, 19 June 2024 (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)
	:Yes otherwise they are not a "notable" person in Misplaced Pages terms. ] (]) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (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)
	::@], or someone else, are you able to confirm what @] is saying here?
			::::::{{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)
	::There are 2 notable people of the community, which have multiple sources online to cite, and according to ], section "Lists of People", it has the following exceptions:
			:::::::It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:
			::::::::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)
	::* If the person is ], the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Misplaced Pages article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either ] or ].
			:::::::::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)
	::* In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness. Can these exceptions apply here? Is it really that bad to have 2 very notable people of the community, cited, in the notable list... without having an article on them? I think this is going abit too far to be fair. @] is still deleting content after I have asked multiple times not to, in order to give me a chance to cite what needs to be cited. Like honestly, calm down mate, you're abit over the top.
			::::::::::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)
	::] (]) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (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 have spent an extraordinary amount of time here complaining and attacking other users, if you have the sources please just present them here or on the article talk page. ] (]) 02:22, 20 June 2024 (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)
	::::@] I don't see any attack/complaint, and I didn't spend an '''extraordinary''' amount of time. I simply made reference to an article where the rules are. Is that okay, or is that unusual for you?
			::::::::::::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 am asking for another opinion as you have stated that notable people, are only notable on Misplaced Pages, if they have an article. And I want to double check the exceptions to that.
			*], 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.
	::::# I have asked if content can stop being deleted in order to give me a chance to check and cite everything. And I had to do that to deleted people, who many of which, were readded. But alot of people have been removed from the article now.
			: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)
	::::] (]) 07:27, 20 June 2024 (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)
	:::::{{U|Annamaria.dmrt}} This is not the correct location for this discussion please take it to the article talk page and provide your reliable sources for including non ] people in the list. ] (]) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (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)
	:::@] is correct, yes. A person does need to have a Misplaced Pages article ''or'' they need to meet the notability criteria set out in ] and be eligible for an article to be listed in the notable people section. If you are certain that an individual meets Misplaced Pages's eligibility criteria, you may add them to the list as a red link but if challenged you should be able to demonstrate why they meet the criteria.
			::There's which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. ] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The ] policy only applies to list article, such as ], ] and ]. It doesn't necessarily apply to lists within articles. When it says non-notable people can be included in lists for completeness, this is in the case of definitive lists rather than subjective ones like this. For example, the article for a university which has had multiple notable chancellors may list ''all'' of the university's chancellors for the sake of completeness.
			:::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)
	:::I have purposefully not yet read the article (other than checking a few diffs), in an attempt to remain impartial and provide advice based entirely on policy rather than opinion. I cannot say whether any of the notable people listed belong there.
			::::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)
	:::In order to give you more time to properly cite the content, I have copied the article to your sandbox (]) where you can edit it without worrying about other editors removing uncited contributions. Once you've got references for the content you want to add you can merge it into the article yourself or ask a more experienced editor for help doing so.
			:::::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)
	:::This thread is now quite off topic from what should be discussed at ANI and so I'd ask that an uninvolved editor closes this discussion. The original reason for this report has been dealt with and this conversation would be better continued elsewhere. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 09:32, 20 June 2024 (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}}
	== User: Alexanderkowal on ] ==		== ]: ] and ] behaviour. ==
			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.
	{{atop
	| status = Discussion moved
	| result = {{nac}} OP has moved the discussion to ]. ] (]) 23:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	}}
	Hi, is my conduct on ] appropriate? I'm trying to purge the dysfunction from the rfc I did but I'm struggling to gauge whether it's appropriate to have another topic on redesigning it for relisting. I don't plan on engaging in a relisting ] (]) 13:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Perhaps this would be better placed on ]? ]] 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Yes, sorry thank you ] (]) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
			(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.
			More specifically this line:
			{{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)
			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.
			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 ''. 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:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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: {{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.
			: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)
			*: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 ().
			: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)
			:{{tq|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. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 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. ] (]) 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 ==
			On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
			Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], 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. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (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)
			::::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 ==
			*{{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)
			: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 ==
			{{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:
			* After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ].
			* 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)
			: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 ==
			{{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)
			:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 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. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ] ==
			{{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 ==
	== Tendentious editor on ] ==
			{{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}}
			], 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)
			:It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 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? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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) ==
	{{u|TheManTheyCallAdam}} is engaged in slow-walking reverts of content against guidelines, in this case ]. At an earlier point, I and this editor discussed this matter, although they ]. On their talk page and in the article's talk, I showed them the guideline that shows 'The' is not to be capitalized. It is in the middle of a sentence as well.
			An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].
	I realize that the specific matter at hand is very minor, that it's just the casing of a word. But the problem as I see it is TheManTheyCallAdam is acting as someone who 1) pushes their opinion over that of the wiki guideline, with no acknowledgement there even is a guideline that covers it; 2) uses a slow-walking ] editing approach to ensure their opinion wins; and 3) based on their editing pattern, mostly focused on this matter, they aren't really ]. Most of what they're "doing" is waiting to change it back again.
			The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
	I considered treating this as a content dispute and going through other channels first, but I have come to look at this as straight-up problematic editor behavior, disruptive in nature, with an apparent unwillingness to accept that the Misplaced Pages is written with guidelines in mind. New editors who so openly refuse our guidelines at least need to be reminded that we take them seriously, and that willy-nilly changing something to be their way is disruptive, if not ] behavior. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Both of you have been engaged in an editing war since at least April. It also appears that you have been watching the page since around last year. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b>♨ 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::That could well be the appearance at a superficial level but I have tried to explain my edit and the other party stopped trying to, and is simply reverting me. Also, let's review that my position is based on the MoS. The bottom line is the other party is required to discuss if they disagree. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Whether or not this is edit warring (] doesn't appear to apply), if you or anyone would like to lay out a solution, I would like to consider it (why I'm here). I am not interested in having a conflict. I just would like the other editor to understand we have guidelines here, and move on to other articles to work on if they so choose. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I completely understand and have looked at the matter a little more closely. Given the typical options, I would imagine the kindest conclusion would be for an independent admin to give a warning and block if it occurs again..
	:::<s>Well thats what I thought until i found this: ]. I could be wrong, but this user appears to be evading a block from 2009.</s> <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b>♨ 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I’m on mobile (desktop view) so it’s difficult for me to request for a checkuser. Also, given that the accounts were made 14 years apart its possible ISPs wouldn’t match anyways. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b>♨ 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Give me a bit to review that case to confirm what you're laying out, and if I see the same problem, I will make a request. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I have reviewed this. Beyond the username being similar to the suspected sockpuppet and there being an apparent shared subject interest, I don't see hard evidence connecting them, and it has been seven years since the last sock in this case has appeared, with the long-term case closed with "Long-gone LTA". Of course, there could be something I'm not seeing. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, I will strike my comment then as I am not here to ]. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b>♨ 06:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for helping here. If the issue is limited to what I stated above, I am fine with a warning or at least an informational reminder about the MoS and ensuring they understand to consider the other party's views in a discussion. If it's more than that, and is a block evasion, that would of course merit something stronger. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Per the "watching" part, I have watched it for the usual reasons for watching, and has nothing to do with this matter. I watch because I am interested in subjects related to Muhammad Ali and there have been problematic edits to review over this period of time. Just thought I would respond to that element. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:What's funny is that this is far from being the worst issue in the article, where the back and forth on the subject's birth date sometimes is problematic, to put it mildly. I am going to resolve this by no longer watching or working on the article. Sometimes in life, you have to let things go, especially when they eat into your productivity and sanity. That I'm not getting support on this smaller matter tends to make such a choice the wise one. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 19:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::He has blatantly ignored this ANI as can bee seen ] and has continued to war, i support an indef. I think the point was proven by this that he is ], as sad as that is. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b>♨ 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Trolling vandalism ==
			: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)
	{{u|Rantoodle}} seems to be a purely vandalism and trolling account. They received multiple warnings earlier this month for their vandalism and practically all article edits they've made have been reverted. Then they just made this . Very clearly a case of ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:19, 19 June 2024 (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 ==
	:As I responded on my talk page, you’ll see that I haven’t made any edits of the kind that other people expressed concerns about. I’m honestly confused as to what was wrong with the edit request I made, too. I’m not understanding how it was bigoted but I’m open to being corrected if perhaps I don’t understand something. ] (]) 03:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::If you don't understand why that comment was {{Redacted}} inappropriate, frankly I don't know how we can help you. I am not going to repeat it here and advise you to refrain from doing so also as it was wholly inappropriate. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) <small>Edit: redacted and replaced part of my comment, mindful of ]. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 03:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)</small>
	:I have reverted the linked comment and warned the user (not that it's likely to make much difference). Together with adding the word {{tq|niggardly}} to the article Gravity Falls ({{diff2|1228901396|diff}}) and then claiming they didn't ({{diff2|1228920556|diff}}), I agree this is clearly a case of ]. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::And they've reinstated said talk page comment again. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I had a legitimate request. Other editors are welcome to disagree and decline. I also did have a salient comment about another topic of discussion (which I added as well). ] (]) 03:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:What's happening here is POV pushing at best but quite obvious they are making a statement, not to actually improve an article, but to cause a ruckus. I agree their behavior here is not welcome. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 03:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::And I'll note that I personally find their statement to be {{Redacted}} intended to arouse vitriol via inappropriate, obviously unobjective language. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Again, I would appreciate an explanation of how my request was perceived to be bigoted. Nowhere did I make any derogatory remark? ] (]) 03:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I believe you know that the statement is {{Redacted}} intended to arouse vitriol via inappropriate, obviously unobjective language. Don't play this here. {{redacted}} ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::@], @] I've redacted that particular word from my own comment above, realising it probably falls foul of ], and you may also wish to do so yourselves. I completely agree the comment was objectionable but we should all observe policy. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 03:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I have revised my statements. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 03:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::“Intended to arouse vitriol”? Excuse me, that in itself is an objectionable accusation. Im being called a vandal and said to be intending to arouse vitriol just for asking a question anyone can simply say “no” to and explain why not? Im sorry but this is quite hostile and I would appreciate an apology. I haven’t once been uncivil to you. ] (]) 04:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Your question is reasonably seen to be uncivil and I believe you know it is. I am done here. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::And how could my question “arouse vitriol”? I’m seriously confused here. Please help me understand why it seems I am being ganged up on. ] (]) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::You are not confused. Again, don't play us here. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::In response to this, and your latest edit summary {{tq|Please simply engage in discussion and refrain from making unfounded accusations that I am acting in bad faith (I am not)}}, I am willing to believe you ''may'' not have been acting in bad faith when you first posed the question. However, at least four editors (including another on your talk page) have told you that this was not appropriate and the chances of anyone assuming good faith with you are getting very slim. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I would just like to discuss this and get to the bottom of what you are all perceiving as objectionable and why, so I can understand it and avoid it in the future. It doesn’t have to be here, it can be on the article talk page and I would in fact prefer that to this noticeboard. ] (]) 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I do not believe you genuinely can't understand what is objectionable, but on the off-chance you genuinely don't, please see ]. This policy is concerned with article content rather than comments on talk pages but should go some way to explaining why we object. ] is an essay, not an official policy or guideline, but it may also help your understanding. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 04:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:This is an LTA with a familiar pattern of editing. Indeffed. ] (]) 04:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{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)
	== Revoke TPA ==
			: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 ====
	] seems to be reinserting promotional content in talk page after being blocked years ago, and I request TPA removal of the mentioned user. ] <small> (]) </small> 06:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			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 ====
	:{{done}} ] ] 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			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 ==
	== Persistent addition of unsourced content/overlinking ==
			{{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)
	{{userlinks|50.205.182.253}} Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, continued after final warning (and hasn't responded to warnings), has been blocked four times previously for disruptive editing in the last 2 years. Examples of addition of unsourced content/overlinking: {{diff|Lynn Redgrave|prev|1229830561|1}}, {{diff|Günter Kunert|prev|1229840420|2}}, {{diff|Iring Fetscher|prev|1228567324|3}}. ] (]) 06:21, 19 June 2024 (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}}
			==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual==
	:I've blocked them for a year. It's not usual to block an IP address indefinitely but that might be the only solution in this case. ] (]) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{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}}
	== Revoke an IP's TPA ==
			::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.
	{{Atop|This is resolved. ] (]) 17:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) {{nac}})}}
	{{IPlinks|2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:6D48:690A:7D35:DC25}}
			*{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}}
	Making bogus unblock requests, which I removed because they're not worth entertaining, and . ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 07:02, 19 June 2024 (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 ].
	:Looking through it, I can definitely understand the edits they made were very disruptive, but edit summary that you made in my opinion, wasn't very respectful. Let's see what the administrators have to comment. ] (]) 07:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)		Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 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. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Buddy, that edit summary is nothing compared to blatant transphobia... and the antisemitism that got them blocked. I think "fuck off" is mild compared to them putting ] around the ADL's name. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 07:08, 19 June 2024 (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)
	* {{done}}, and revision-deleted the bigotry and abuse. ] 07:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:Oh well, I'll just assume good faith and think that what you wrote is indeed milder compared to the slurs they wrote. ] (]) 07:13, 19 June 2024 (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)
	*:: I can assure you that "fuck off" was an extremely mild reaction to what they wrote. ] 07:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	*:::True, I used to think "fuck off" was extremely rude, but there's a lot of ruder expressions than this. God, I really need to understand that more often. ] (]) 07:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	{{Abot}}
			== 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks ==
	== Problematic edit summaries ==
			{{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)
			:I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (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 ==
	Can someone take care of the edit summaries left by {{userlinks|Flearoyuoi}}? (For the record, I did not inform this user of this discussion; they've already been blocked for flagrant abuse.) ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{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:
	:Someone has removed the edit summaries already. <span style="color: #000065; font-size: 5; font-family: monospace">‹]› <sup>(] • ])</sup></span> 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}
	== Possible sockpuppet "keep" votes at ] ==
			{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}
	There are currently three comments suggesting inclusion for the article ] at its AfD nomination, all featuring the same run-on-sentence-with-zero-punctuation writing style. When checking the ], you'll find that they've only edited the aforementioned page along with the AfD listing itself; the IP address that voted "keep" has similarly only posted on the AfD listing. I have the feeling that this is sockpuppetry in motion. ] (]) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}
	:Blocked by Spicy. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''] - ] - ]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}
	== Can you please help ==
	*{{Courtesy link|WP:HD#Online abuse targeted by my ex|linktext=Help desk question related to the same matter}}
	Abused online via wikapedia.org. Person using this to bully and abuse me I am scared for my family. Can administrator person responsible please email me to discuss further and in more detail mark Sullivan formb ] (]) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:] is what you are looking for, I believe. --] (]) 20:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:{{nacc}}{{ping|Marksullivanformby}} It's hard to figure out from your account's ] what specific Misplaced Pages pages you're referring to, but all of the pages you've edit so far seem to be related to sex work/prostitution in the UK. The content you've been removing with your edits so far seems a bit randon and otehrwise only related to someone who died in 1888; moreover, Misplaced Pages has several articles about persons named ]. You posted at the Misplaced Pages Help Desk that you noticed this problem when you type your name. Are you saying that when you do an Internet search of your name, a particular Misplaced Pages article shows up first in the search results? Is the Misplaced Pages article about you or is it about someone else you might have the same name as you? If the article is about you, it would be helpful if you could provide the name of the article so that someone can review it. If the article is about someone else, then there's not really anything that Misplaced Pages can do about it showing up in Internet search results. -- ] (]) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Counter request-'''Blocking OP'''<br>I'm requesting to block OP, since they are clearly not here to build. All edits can be considered as disruptive or vandalism. I didn't find anything related to harm them on wiki and they are incompetence for communicating. I suspected someone may post something on miraheze? wikia? about them, but they came to the wrong place. ] 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:The OP has stated at the Help Desk that they have a lawyer looking into this, and has been provided the info email there and a link to T&S on their talkpage. ] (]) 02:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			Dates:
	== Repeated WP:GS/AA violations ==
			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.
	On June 13, I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
			21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
	Göycen still made several POV pushing edits in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles after the warning.
			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 ].
	On June 17, {{u|Rosguill}} gave Göycen another contentious topics warning.
			26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
	More reverting and POV pushing in AA articles after second warning. ] (]) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase ''"This is your final straw."''
	:@]I have not been warned by you. that was a mistake as you wrote on the page ]. I have not changed anything on the pages, only reverted the changes from the block-evading sockpuppet IP address, by going through 100s of edits on my free time as stated on each edit did not reverted changes by other users or bots. Everything can be traced.
	:As an extended confirmed user and a person who is more informed about Armenian topics than I am, you have the right to revert my changes instead of creating a complaint. I also told Rosguill that I have not made any political changes. Every edit I made was from the same user, who is well known for changing sources according to his gut feeling. ] (]) 22:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Your examples are unfortunately cherry-picked. I suggest you compare them with the changes made by the IP address. There are obvious instances of vandalism that I have reverted in some of your examples. ] (]) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	*So, given that the edits since the CTOPS warning appear to have been limited to reverting an IP that was itself violating GS/AA, I'm a bit disinclined to sanction. That having been said, {{u|Göycen}}, GS/AA (and all other topic restrictions) are ''broadly construed''--they are not limited to "political" edits. You are expected to stay away from topics relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan entirely until you are extended-confirmed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:I understand. In case of future IP edits, I will let @] and others know to either revert the changes or review them until I receive my extended confirmation. ] (]) 22:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:Is Goycen ] the rules by making over a hundred useless article move edits in the past day to reach 500 edits, then going straight to reverting AA articles again? Göycen used the same "misspelled"/"misunderstandings" edit summary for all of these moves, a lot of which were counterproductive (there was only one article called ] so it did not need to be moved to ]). ] (]) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	*::Yes, that is clear GAMING, and many (potentially even all?) of the page moves are clearly in contradiction to our article title policies. EC status revoked indefinitely as an arbitration enforcement action, appealable no sooner than 3 months. I would add that correcting any erroneous page moves will be considered favorably on appeal. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I have been reviewing many of Göycen's edits and they aren't constructive to say the least. From unexplained removal of sourced content, removing relevant hyperlinks, and POV pushing by removing anything referencing "Armenia" or "Armenians" on several articles. This is quite concerning. I believe stricter action is required at this point. ] (]) 23:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Hey, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, I have the right to make those edits. Since the person who was writing had a POV, it is normal for you to see those words. By "Goycen's edits," you most likely mean my reverts of a banned (evaded many times) sockpuppetted source, which, according to this topic, have to be reverted. What you are doing by reverting my changes without changing anything inside is simply saying that the above-mentioned IP address had the right to do all he wanted. ] (]) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Could you please go through edits of @], because today he also rightfully reverted same person. You might wanna take your stricker action against him as well, instead not doing anything to obviously proarmenian pov pushing ip adresses edits in last 6 months. it is really easy to write ]. I am wondering what were you guys doing last 6 months.
	*:::::my only obviously sided edit was on ] page which i did not reverted because i know where i was wrong. for the future edits i took always third opinion. ] (]) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			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.
	== Boogi wu and their hoaxes ==
			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 ].
	Though {{user|Boogi wu}} has been blocked and locked years ago, I found some of their hoaxes are still in the current article. <br>
	For example
	#], section of 14th century, the banner are still the one they added as "King of the Romans"
	#], the founder are still the one they changed as Dionysius the Areopagite (tradition)
			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.
	Is there any sysop or common user who are familiar with history can reviewed their edits one by one? These hoaxes are scattered on Middle Age history. Or, where should I post this notice on? ] 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			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."''
	:If you feel certain that you see hoax or false information in an, article, you are free to remove it yourself, no need to wait for an admin. &spades;]&spades; ] 03:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:You should notify ] of this cleanup, where the notice should last at least 30 days instead of 3. –] (]]) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	::That project is likely inactive, I wondered who may see this notice? ] 01:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
			I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
	== LTA MakaveliReed 3 ==
			] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	* ]
	* {{Vandal|2601:240:DE00:740:31D0:D727:BE95:9FDE}}
			: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)
	], now that it ended. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:5px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">] ]</span> 04:43, 20 June 2024 (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}}
			* '''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)
	== AmechiUdoba1 ==		== Swagsgod ==
			{{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)
	Since its creation two months ago, the user {{user|AmechiUdoba1}} has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-] ethnic groups and their languages.
			::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 ==
	To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:
	# ] and ]: For context, these two regions are a "geopolitical zones" in Nigeria; the SE roughly lines up with ] but includes a few other ethnicities while the South South is extremely ethnically diverse. AmechiUdoba1 first came to my attention when the account (and an aligned IP) removed a language from the South East page without reason. This is a common tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: , , , , , ). It is a good mark for a user that is ] and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blockings of two similar users (, ). On the South East page, the account first English from the page before almost all non-Igbo languages yesterday. To continue this trend of ethnically-charged edits, on the South South page AmechiUdoba1 just two languages without reason — likely a slight against ethnic ] (another large Nigerian ethnicity) and a denial of the ]'s existence (Igbo jingoists often attempt to categorize all Igboid languages as Igbo).
	## Similar AmechiUdoba1 edits are now afflicting other pages: Ngwa people (replacing ] with ]) and ] (removing Yoruba as its language despite adding Igbo for a dozen cities).
	# ] and ]: For context, these two states are mainly non-Igbo but were included in the Igbo-dominated breakaway state of ] during the ]. Both pages had a sentence stating that Biafran forces persecuted inhabitants due to their ethnicity — backed up by a which AmechiUdoba1 did not remove or contest; AmechiUdoba1 twice switched the words on the pages, changing it to "Nigerian forces." Not claiming that Nigerian forces did not commit atrocities, but the removal of Biafran crimes is a not not-too-subtle attempt to whitewash one side's wartime atrocities.
	# ]: A combination of the and edits by simply trying to remove the Ikwerre group and their language from the page. Ikwerre is another group alternatively classified as either a related ethnic group or an Igbo subgroup so AmechiUdoba1's goal seems to be denying their existence.
			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.
	Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits. Thank you, ] (]) 05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	==]'s ] of ]==
	ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Misplaced Pages in which the ] principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing ] concerning a historic train.
	*{{userlinks|DTParker1000}}
	*{{pagelinks|Rio Grande 223}}
	The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on ], and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including ], removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: ]. .
	I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a ] on 19 March 2024, ], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: ]. I closed that request as ]. JTParker1000 has now filed a second ], ], with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.
	ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and ].
	] (]) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:This guy is an absolute menace. He can't be reasoned with - I would know, because I'm among the many who tried. He continues to labor under the mindset that if he appeals high enough, surely someone will intervene in his favor, which is nonsense since the matter is a content dispute, and every other editor who has weighed in disagrees with him. That he continues to waste everyone's time in this manner rather than doing literally anything else shows he is not compatible with Misplaced Pages, because he cannot work with other people. Take a look at the giant wall of ] he wrote at ]. He needs an indef. ] (]) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Other than in regards to this incident, DTParker1000 has never been blocked. Their one block is a partial block for the article in question. While their edit count is low, they've been on the project for 14 years. Longevity does not confer special treatment, but I think it's a bit of a leap to go from a partial block to a sitewide block without a final warning. I've given them the final warning, but they've not edited since. I think it's sufficient to leave it at that. If they persist in their behavior, myself or another administrator will likely indef them until they agree to ]. --] (]) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::We can wait and see for the moment, but I'm very skeptical we will see any change in behavior. If this continues any further, I think an indef will become the only option. ] (]) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'm not convinced that an indef is the only option. It might or might not be the best option, but a topic ban from discussing Rio Grande 223 anywhere on Misplaced Pages (excluding replies to explicit questions about it in discussions about their conduct) with enforcement by the usual method of escalating blocks is at the very least an option and one I think worthy of consideration. ] (]) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I've asked them on their talk page if they would agree to voluntary tban, but upon looking further it seems clear that they often make a few edits and then go inactive for a few months. That being the case, I think an involuntary topic ban is the appropriate sanction. If they break it, blocks will follow. It looks like their edits outside of this one area are fine, they just need to drop the stick on this issue. ] ] 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	== Is this acceptable? ==		== 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. ] (]) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	This edit ] looks to me to be more than a bit racist. ] (]) 06:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			: 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)
	:In the context of that discussion this is fair enough responding to an earlier remark. If you think the statement is incorrect you can argue about it on the RSN. But it is relevant to the debate there. ] (]) 07:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			== IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles ==
	== Massive edits by suspected sockpuppet Ip adress ==
			{{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)}}
	{{Atop|I've blocked ] for 6 months.--] (]) 13:37, 20 June 2024 (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 .
	Hi, I already filed a sockpuppet investigation due to the size of the edits made by ]. To ensure a quick response, I would like to file a complaint here. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the changes currently being made by this user. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			#
	:I just revert your vandlism. Most of these versions have already been accepted by administrators and even been accepted in talk pages of the articles, like in ]. Your approach is awful. @] can check our edits and see who is right, now stop edit warring Göycen. ] (]) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Abuse log of the user can be seen ] (]) 10:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)		#
			#
	*The report is at ].--] (]) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			#
	{{Abot}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			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)
	== ] possible block evasion ==
			* '''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}}
	*{{user links|Jomadodgh}}
			::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)
	This user has made three edits so far to the pages ], ] and ]. In all three cases, the edit summary was {{tq|yama nene}} or a variation upon it.
			::: 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 ==
	] was blocked on 30 April 2024 and ] was blocked on 2 April 2024 both for making similar edits which used the same edit summaries. Other accounts have engaged in the same editing behaviour, particularly at the Bilqis Prasista article but I am listing the most recent diffs for expediency.
			{{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)
	*]
	:* {{diff2|1214814997|Edit by Kumananah at 10:21, 21 March 2024}}
	:* {{diff2|1214815121|Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:53, 20 June 2024}}
	*]
	:* {{diff2|1216882500|Edit by Its oke way at 15:01, 2 April 2024}}
	:* {{diff2|1230053483|Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:54, 20 June 2024}}
	*]
	:*{{diff2|1230053627|Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:56, 20 June 2024}}
			:This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Based on these edits, I think it is reasonable to assume that this is an attempt at evading a block and that these accounts are all sockpuppets of each other. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 10:25, 20 June 2024 (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)
	:This should be reported at ].--] (]) 13:24, 20 June 2024 (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)
	::Of course it should have been, sorry. Will move it over to there shortly. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 13:54, 20 June 2024 (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 ==
	== ] speedy deleted after significant changes ==
			*{{userlinks|93.204.189.212}}
			*{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA}}
			*{{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)
	Hello, I am the author of ] which was recently deleted after an AfD. I was able to undelete the page and draftify it for the purposes of improving the article and moving it to mainspace after the database had received enough notability.
			: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)
	Interestingly, shortly after the article was deleted, the company raised $20m USD after another investment round, alongside the launch of their "Cloud" beta announcement. Plus I found a number of new sources further establishing notability.
			== Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP ==
	I don't blame anyone, because it was recreated quickly after the AfD so I can understand why it might appear as circumventing the AfD process - however my intention was not to do that, and I believe the article would now survive an AfD since the article had undergone more significant changes, and addition of new sources.
			{{atop
			| result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
	I would like to have this article undergo a new AfD instead of speedy deletion. <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This is not the proper forum for this request. ] ] 11:07, 20 June 2024 (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)
	::My apologies <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 11:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I restored it to draft for you to work on, however it should now go through ]. ] 11:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)		::Thanks, I've made a note of that. ] (]) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::@] I can't seem to find it, can you link? <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 11:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Sorry, to clarify, I believe you undeleted it after it was moved to mainspace by another user, but then after making improvements to the page, I believe I moved it to mainspace again, and was deleted by another admin (I believe incorrectly) under ] <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 11:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I also believe ] was not properly used here, as the article was significantly changed from the version deleted through AFD. I've restored the article and moved it to ] again. As previously advised, please submit this article through the ] process; if it's recreated in mainspace again without being approved by an independent AFC reviewer, it most likely will be deleted again. I have protected both pages only to save the admin work if you bypass this process again. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::Thank you @] <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			== revoke TPA for ]? ==
	:Can I ask on what grounds Mr vili considered it in any way appropriate to remove multiple sections of comment from the draft talk page, without archiving: ] (]) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{atop
	::Looks to me like they copied the source table from the AFD, and overwrote the existing discussions ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			| result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::My ability to AGF with regards to this particular contributor is somewhat strained. An 'accident' that removes significant negative feedback from contributors seems a little too convenient to me. At least it does, after taking into consideration some of the other problematic behaviour I've seen. ] (]) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			}}
	:::Furthermore, the source table was ''not'' copied from the AfD. The source table there (created by another AfD participant) was entirely different, and demonstrated how the sources then being cited were in no way sufficient to demonstrate notability. There are a few sources cited in both tables, though now with Mr Vili's positive spin, rather than the original critique. ] (]) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (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)
	:::I'd also like to see what people here think of ''this'' comment by Mr Vili on the draft talk page: Little room for AGF there... ] (]) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::There’s no way there’s no COI. ] ] 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It's possibly a case of very enthusiastic advocacy, but when I last ran into the SurrealDB article in January . I don't know. ] (]) 02:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::If you look at our interaction history, its constantly you arguing and criticising every action I take. You are acting against the interests of the encyclopedia. Please find something new to do @]. <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Doubling down, I see. As for the interests of the encyclopaedia, we can talk about that if you like. Starting with your persistent use of it to promote imaginary countries , and your inability to understand Misplaced Pages sourcing policy. Do you really think that if you keep citing it often enough people will think that a website (lightsquare.org) run by the 'Government of Lumina' (see ) is a reliable source for anything but complete bullshit? ] (]) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I did not overwrite the discussions, they were not recovered when the page was undeleted by an administrator, the talk page I created was initially empty <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">] ]</span> 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::The diff says otherwise. ] (]) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
			== Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations ==
	:For further evidence of problematic editing by Mr Vili, see ], created by him today. And then compare the claim in the lede {{tq|"It is the first model to surpass GPT-4o in a majority of benchmarks, making it the current leading state-of-the-art general model"}} with what the sources cited () actually say. The article is entirely promotional, regurgitating the developer company's claims as fact, and as far as I can see, utterly redundant, since we already have an article on ]. ] (]) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	== sanitisation of page / heavy editing ==
			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.
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Kate_Fischer
			Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:] 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)
	this page has recently been heavily edited and needs investigation. its been sanitised and is now inaccurate <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::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)
			:::For added context, see ], from where the user was sent here. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:There is a clear an unambiguous conflict of interest here. The article subject has edited the article themselves and declared that they are the subject on the article talk page. I'm taking a look through the diffs and checking all of the edits were appropriate. At a glance, several edits need to be reverted. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 15:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::IP editor, please be aware of our stringent policy on ]. Gossip, speculation and innuendo are not permitted. I removed a BLP violation from the talk page. ] (]) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{u|Adam Black}}, why did you restore the content sourced to ], a user generated genealogy record? Is that appropriate? It looks like ] to me. ] (]) 16:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I restored the page back to before the COI editor started editing and then subsequently removed that portion. Unless I've missed a second use of that reference, I'll double check now. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 16:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I believe I've correctly removed that reference ({{diff2|1230093225}}). I can't see any further use of Geni.com. I was going to now fully copyedit the article, verify the references, and make changes to comply with BLP policy as necessary but my partner has just arrived home early and I have to get started on dinner. I can finish doing so later this evening unless someone else wants to take a look at the article in the meantime. ] <sup>] &bull; ]</sup> 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks, {{u|Adam Black}}. I looks to me like IP editors are trying to portray this person in a negative light and she is trying to defend herself somewhat ineptly. ] (]) 16:44, 20 June 2024 (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.
	== Contested RfC Close ==
			: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.
	{{atop|1= I have about the comment at the RFC by ], the ADL rep. The rest of the complaint is now moot/premature. I will also be "archiving" parts 2 and 3 of the ADL discussion, pending formal closure, so that the discussion contents are not a moving target for the closer. Suggest that editors wait for the RFC to be closed before raising further objections. ] (]) 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}}
			:Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner ] (]) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	I wish to challenge the June 18 closure for parts two and three of ]. The RSN RFC for ] by ] on Jun 18, 2024. The editor invited challenges to the close on ANI. Despite the June 18 closure of the entire RfC, and after an ], about 14 new editors went to “part two” and left additional responses to the survey. Clearly, these new editors felt there was still merit in further discussion.
			::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)
			:::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. ==
	But others, such as me, obeyed the dictate to not participate and waited for the challenge at ANI to resolve. We can’t know how many others refrained from participating. This is particularly germane in my case because the ADL just asked me for advice as an unpaid consultant last night. I refrained from posting on the RfC. Starting a separate challenge to the close on parts 2 and 3 seemed premature given there was still a very active discussion of part 1. ] closed the discussion on part one on June 20. Wordsmith then went to part two and left this message: “Close in progress: The Wordsmith is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted within a day or so.”
			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.
	Simply disregarding survey responses after June 18 does not seem wise given some of these responses are substantive. But other editors have now been warned twice - by Wordsmith and Scottish - to stop participating. I also went ahead and just left a comment now that I know 14 others already disregarded the closure admonition
	I would like to propose that the RfC for parts two and three be reopened for discussion, and any decision postponed until substantive discussion of the survey concludes. ] (]) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			Here are some examples of their removals:
	*This seems like an attempt to ] by an editor with a declared COI and should be disregarded. Closure of a discussion that has been open for 2 months is ''overdue'', not premature. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	*This statement is false: {{tq|The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024.}} ] (]) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:To clarify, I was just closing the out-of-place discussion on challenging the close of section 1. ] (]) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	* {{Tq|The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024}}: There seems to be some misunderstanding. ScottishFinnishRadish only closed the subthread discussing the closure of part 1. Other un-closed subthreads remained open after June 18, and The Wordsmith . I don't think The Wordsmith has expressed any plans to {{tq|disregard survey responses after June 18}}. I suppose don't know what would become of additional responses now that the closures are indicated to be in progress; the notices don't ''prohibit'' additional commenting, after all. I grant that I can't help but think that doing so seems like it'd be kind of impolite to The Wordsmith, who has committed to take on the time-consuming task of carefully reading the already very long threads, analyzing the arguments, and describing what the community's consensus is or isn't. Since all three parts had been have been open for comment from the Misplaced Pages community since April 7, and since this is building on other long discussions, it's hard to think that closure would be premature or that substantive discussion hasn't already taken place. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	* A close review of discussions that haven't yet been closed... -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	* I think this discussion should just be closed to avoid a ]. There is nothing to resolve as the RfC in question (Part 2 and 3) hasn't even been closed, as referenced above. The obvious suggestion would be to wait for the RfC to close before contesting, as there is otherwise no reason to contest the imminent closure of an overdue RfC because the subject has something to say. All I see is defamation of an admin, ie claiming they closed a contentious RfC when they didn't, as it still remains open. ] (]) 21:18, 20 June 2024 (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.
			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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: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)
			::And pertaining to that discussion and article, Dronebogus removed.
			::And at Origami, these were removed.
			::And at Knitting, these were removed.]] 15:41, 23 January 2025 (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)
			::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)
			:::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)
			: These should be reverted, per {{u|sp}} and especially Floquenbeam's comment. ] (]) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (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)
			: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 with the comment {{tq|how about none}}
			:*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}}
			:*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}}		{{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===
	== User:GenevieveDEon ==
			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.
	@] has attempted to accuse me of targeting them, over a basic CTOPS notice for ].
			* ] – @] created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to ].
	Notice on their talk page about climate change and a climate-change protest being a contentious topic:
			* ] – @] 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
	GenevieveDEon (], a protest by ]). The nomination was perfectly acceptable and allowed. However, in the nomination, GenevieveDEon focused on the article creator (myself) of ], over a false accusation that I did not want the scope to be expanded. As a note, the single comment I made on the talk page () was replying to {{noping|Ad Orientem}} who questioned the notability of the article. I stated it seemed to pass LASTING, but we should reassess in a week to see if it passes LASTING and the 10-year test. Not once did I mention "scope", and yet, I was accused of doing so in the AfD nomination.
			* ] – 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}}
			== ] ==
	When regarding the false accusation, GenevieveDEon gave some interesting answers, including more accusations. that I was targetting them by giving them their first CTOPICS notice for climate change. I gave it for a very appropriate reason, (and editor with just over 500 edits who started an AFD on a climate change protest). In that same response, it was also stated as clear as day by GenevieveDEon: "{{tq|I also note that WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. '''This isn't about climate change.''' I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest}} (bolding my doing).
	After this targeting accusation, I that CTOPICS is just a required thing: "{{tq|The tag on your talk page is a required thing per ]. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you.}}" Despite that notice, GenevieveDEon continued pressing the matter and doubled down , "{{tq|I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the ] article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation.}}"
			{{userlinks|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}}<br>
	After to strike their doubled down accusations, saying, "{{tq|No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands.}}"
			This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:
	This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand CTOPICS and wants to personally attack people, even when it is stated that it is a required thing. GenevieveDEon just recently acquired their EC status (early June 2024 as far as I can tell), and they are editing heavily now in a contentious topic. Given they have directly stated a protest regarding climate change by ] is not related to climate change and that the standard CTOPICS notice was considered targeting to them, I believe they are not truly ready to edit in CTOPICS areas. My suggestion would be either a formal warning/alert that CTOPIC notifications are required and that a climate protest does indeed related to climate change (this is my preferred request) or if it is indeed felt by the community/others that GenevieveDEon is not ready for CTOPICS, that their EC status be revoked (I do not feel this is necessary). '''The ]''' (] 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
			* ] warning about using AI chatbot.
			* Me warning .
	::It's late here, and I'm not particularly interested in wikilawyering. If contentious topic flags are mandatory, and you knew that, why did you not put one on the article that you yourself had created, until after I had nominated it for deletion? This just looks like a way to interfere with the AfD process. I already said that on closer examination the removals of large blocks of other content were to do with other users' POV-pushing, so you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about ] issues. But this is a lot of verbiage about a very insignificant article, about a very insignificant event. Please back down and let the AfD run its course. ] (]) 21:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::ETA: The top of this page says "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Which of those do you think my actions count as? ] (]) 21:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Well, thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership <small>(without providing a single Wikilink to my supposed ownership)</small> over an article, which in the supposed AFD. Funny enough, after doing a count of direct comments in the AFD, you happen to have seven unique comments while I have five (three of which are in the coversation between myself and you) in the AFD). Now you have accused me of interfering in the AFD, OWNing the article, and accused me a POV-pushing. Lol. I want others to comment on your behavior, but I am tempted to switch my supported/proposed action away from a simple warning into more of a T-Ban. Please stop accusing me of things when I haven't done anything but follow the rules. You were not the only editor to receive a CTOPICS notice either. . '''The ]''' (] 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{tq|thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership}} - no, that's the opposite of what I meant. By {{tq|you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about ] issues}} I meant that I ''wasn't'' taking that line any more. I'd have done the same as you (and another editor) did with the additional content you removed. I also haven't said anything at all about you and POV-pushing; again, the mention of POV-pushing was in reference to the users who wanted to make the ] article into something to do with the road tunnel. But your level of aggression about this is wearisome. ] (]) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I apologize, I misread what you put. You are correct, you seem to not be accusing me of anything anymore. Still sad it took opening a discussion at AN/I to get you to understand that. '''The ]''' (] 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::::It seems like this is all talked out which is great. ] it looks like you are rather quick to escalate minor disputes into visits to noticeboards which can be unnecessary stressful for multiple parties and can be seen as a way of manipulating the understanding of how events unfold. I'd try talking more and don't expect editors to immediately understand the points you are trying to make. Most editors do not immediately warm to being corrected and you should expect some pushback. ANI should be your last resort, not a place you bring disputes that just haven't gone your way. And this is not casting aspersions I've just noticed that you have opened at least two cases here this week. Believe me, it's not a great thing to be seen as an ANI regular. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Hey {{u|Liz}}, if I may ask a question, what should I have done differently in these type of situations? Talking it out didn't really happen until it was started at AN/I (as seen in the timestamps). To use this as an example, GenevieveDEon stood their ground, even after being linked to correct policy. Once it was brought here, GenevieveDEon talked it out. In those sitations, instead of coming to AN/I, where is the best place to do to get the "talking it out" to occur, if initial talks don't go anywhere and result in more escalation? '''The ]''' (] 01:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
			Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:
	== Talk Page Access Needs Reviewing: Ironcurtain2 ==
			*.
			*.
			*.
	After being blocked for ] and a declined request for an unblock , ] has used their talk page mainly to go on screeds about administrator corruption and to continue insulting ] . ] (]) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)		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)
			: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)
	.
			: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: ], ], ].
			: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:
			:* 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.
			:** 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.
			:**
			:** On ] the two accounts have made identical changes: first ], then ].
			:** On ] the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: ], then ].
			:Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. ] (]) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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. ].
			::See also the , where there is lots of overlap. ] (]) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== System gaming by NandivadaHungama ==
	:Also, in the interest of full disclosure, please note that I had a very brief communication with this editor, in that I earlier suggested to the editor that it would be a good idea to remove a particularly bad edit they had made to their talk page, so I am not completely uninvolved . ] (]) 21:36, 20 June 2024 (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)
	== Harassment from VPN ==
			:{{done}}.--] (]) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:ThePurgatori ==
	I came online to check my watchlist and get notified that 16 of my edits have been reverted. Each reversion is to an individual article, and all of the articles are then immediately restored to the status quo ante. The edits originate from different IPs in Lagos, Nigeria, that correspond to a VPN provider, Zenlayer Inc.
	*] (4)
	*] (6)
	*] (5)
	That's just today.
			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.
	Yesterday, we had three from ], and the day before I had one from ].
	On Monday there was one from ] and two from ]. Thus far, that makes 22 reversions and restorations, all originating from IPs from the same company.
			, ] 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 ].
	This may or may not be connected to the {{u|Bluebird207}} situation at ]. In both situations, VPN-based IPs were involved.
			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.
	Given that the person behind this is hopping IPs, please advise me on where/how I should attempt to notify them. I will notify Bluebird207's talk page as well. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Add ] to that list. ] (]) 00:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	::I've blocked 98.98.197.128/24 x 3 months. ] has blocked 174.206.169.95 x 1 week. -] (]) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::I went with a shorter block as I wasn't 100% sure this was the same person. But it looks like they are the same person. I'll up my block to 3 months to match yours, unless someone objects. ] (]) 00:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::@] I based my block on the almost total lack of constructive editing within that range. -] (]) 00:30, 21 June 2024 (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.
	== Publius Obsequium disruption==
			* 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.
			* 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",
	{{user|Publius Obsequium}}
			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
	Publius Obsequium has been active since June 2024 adding unreliable content to many articles including ], ], ], ], ], ‎], ], ], ] and others which is soaking up other users time by having to clean up after them. Often this user will either add fringe or primary sources to articles that fail ] or ]. At first they started restoring their deleted content but now they simply ignore any advice they were given and go and find a new target article and add in more unreliable content. After their content is removed then they just move on to another article and do the same again. This has been going on now for nearly 3 weeks.
			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.
	If you scan through their edits since early June almost every edit they have made has been reverted in mainspace. There is a consistent pattern of disruption here and I am surprised they have not been blocked before now. At least 5 users have explained them where they are going wrong, but they do not listen to said advice. Examples of warnings can be seen on their talk-page which they have not properly acknowledged.
			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)
	I first encountered this user on the ] article where they were adding unreliable content which several users took issue with. The user has made it clear that they believe fringe science is a subjective opinion so they ignore ] guidelines. This user only seems to want to edit controversial or fringe related articles related to race and intelligence, gender or fringe and alternative medicine.
			: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! :-(
	If all this was just happening on 1 or 2 articles and they moved on and admitted to their mistakes it could be excused but it has been going on for far too long now. I am not convinced the editor has been acting in good faith. I believe that a topic ban on fringe related content would be appropriate here.
			:{{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 ==
	Just a few examples where they have added fringe/unreliable/undue content , , , , ] (]) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (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)
	:I have earnestly and in good faith been trying to learn how things work as I have not been active for a long time. I have shifted my edits on sources to include secondary work as has been recommended to me. Not all messages to me have been addressed but that is simply because I have forgotten to respond, as I have multiple people trying to talk to me.
			::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)
	:psychologist guy has not interacted with me previously beyond a couple of edit reversions, and now wants to escalate things to a topic ban. Fine, it appears I need to learn more about Misplaced Pages conduct before touching controversial topics. I do not wish to cause anyone frustration. ] (]) 02:47, 21 June 2024 (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)
	:PO is formally aware of gender/sexuality and race/intelligence contentious topics, and their disruption in both is TBAN-worthy. If they are willing to take on a TBAN from both of those and fringe-related content, I'd be happy to see how they fare in less controversial spaces. The reverting without explanation needs to stop. ] (] / ]) 02:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	::i would rather just voluntarily desist from editing in any controversial topics. I think it should be noted that I did see the warning on my talk page about these topics being controversial and I avoided making further edits to them subsequently. ] (]) 03:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Since the on 11 June, you've made edits/comments related to multiple gender/sexuality topics (e.g., ], ], ], ]) and race/intelligence topics (], ]). I think the fact that you're so incorrect here is a sign that formal topic bans, and not voluntary restrictions, are necessary. ] (] / ]) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	::::With all due respect I did not make any edits to Nations and IQ. The Flynn effect is not a topic I would consider as falling under the umbrella of controversial. I think the only one that would be considered controversial is gender dysphoria, and yes I recognize that I should have seen that as being too controversial to jump into the fray on and I apologize for that. ] (]) 03:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 01:44, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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.

• Danish expedition to North America was deleted for WP:PROFRINGE

• Da Serra–American conflict on WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH grounds

• Portuguese Newfoundland on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR

• They've been warned about creating hoax articles and continued doing so.

• Warned for copyright issues which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in Potato Revolt)

• Plenty of articles containing only one source Siege of Campar, Battle of Cape Coast (1562), Battle of Lucanzo (1590), Portudal–Joal Massacre, Battle of the Gambia River (1570), Battle of Mugenga

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)

• Comment: While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 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. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:30, 21 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)

• Comment I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lucanzo (1590). 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. scope_creep 08:55, 15 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)

• Comment This is editor is still creating dog poor articles Cult Member. This is the second in days thats been speedied. scope_creep 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 18 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:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legend of 14 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. E_F 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. E_F 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:

• 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 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:

• 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:

• User:Whoop whoop pull up

Legend of 14 (talk) 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 User:Abductive

Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 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:

• User:Abductive

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. E_F 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)

• Is there anything left here to discuss? Liz 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says "datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 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/. Legend of 14 (talk) 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?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 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. Legend of 14 (talk) 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. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools

• PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• Oppose indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 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

• Aubrey Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Religião, Política e Futebol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

• Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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.

---

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

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:

• This sequence of edits to List of media notable for being in development hell:
  • 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)
  • 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
• To Dawn M. Bennett, removing an image with the edit summary she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image
• To her own user talk, 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

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)

• benefit of the doubt – Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? EEng 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Surprised they weren't blocked after calling the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". E_F 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. E_F 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. E_F 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)

• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. In addition, WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 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. WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 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. E_F 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just WP:TROLLING, their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom Tarlby 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I believe we're being trolled. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. qcne (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Good block by CT. Isaidnoway (talk) 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 IDHT person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. Ravenswing 21:45, 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)

• Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. Springee (talk) 16:12, 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:

• "In 1993, due to the occupation of their village by Armenian forces, her family temporarily settled in Qaradamirchi village of the Barda District."

• "One of Khalil Rza's grandfathers, Rustem beg, was martyred during the Armenian Dashnak-led ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan in 1918"

• "The restoration of our national army, alphabet, state borders that existed until April 28, 1920, economic and political independence, and the cessation of the despicable Dashnaktsutyun aggression".

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

• Caribbean Hindustani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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:

• After Draft:New Jersey Transit 6539-6549 was declined by Stuartyeates, and I warned them that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 created it anyway.
• Danny5784 created NJ Transit bus garages with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After Djflem wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both New Jersey Transit bus garages and NJ Transit Bus Garage Fleet/Routes apparently as content forks.

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.

---

• 2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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)

• 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. Isabelle Belato 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle Belato and Acroterion: Needs talk page access yanked too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Isabelle Belato 18:33, 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.

---

• Conor Benn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.

---

• Anonymous8206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

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

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.

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

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. :) E_F 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

• 93.204.189.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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!

• File:Love Your Enemy poster.png
• File:Love Scout poster.png

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, but also a p-block from file space might be needed since both seem to be using it as a trophy case. Star Mississippi 13:27, 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)

• Support and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The problems aren't limited to file space. See Close Your Eyes (group). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 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 "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)

• Both editors site-blocked for one week for clear escalation and disruption on many pages. I agree that they should be two-way interaction banned once their blocks expire, and also suggest they be banned from creating duplicates of any other users' drafts. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 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. Star Mississippi 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 •Cyberwolf•talk? 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. RachelTensions (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  IMO logging their IBANs in WP:EDRC 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• IBAN OMG. If ever there was a case for an iban, this is it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Yeah. I hadn't been closely following this since stumbling onto the upload war at File:Love Scout poster.png (I think after actioning a speedy deletion request on the image it replaced?), but I was struck even then by how utterly lame it was on both users' parts. Cursory skim through the above diffs hasn't done a thing to convince me otherwise. —Cryptic 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support IBAN and indef ban of both editors from filespace to avoid continued disruption there. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 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:

• User:Iiii I I I warning here about using AI chatbot.
• Me warning about unsourced content.

Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:

• Thanks for clarification!.
• Thanks for your clarification!.
• Got it.Thanks for clarification!.

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.
  • On Uninvited (2024 film) the two accounts have made identical changes: first by IP, then by user.
  • On List of films produced and released by GMA Pictures the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: by IP, then by user.

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.

• For Resonant trans-Neptunian object, 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 User:Renerpho 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 Resonant trans-Neptunian object like in this edit today. In that particular edit, ThePurgatori added (471288) 2011 GM27 to the article. Looking at the edit history of that particular entry, I see that they have changed (471288) 2011 GM27's orbital class 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 Resonant trans-Neptunian object article). The reference to Johnston's archive in that edit links to the wrong page, but they intended to link to Johnston's list of TNOs which makes the "4:7 resonant?" claim. However, that claim is not reliable; the accepted reputable source (Deep Ecliptic Survey) has simulated 2011 GM27's orbit and states that it is not 4:7 resonant. Renerpho has warned ThePurgatori about this again; no response from ThePurgatori.
• For List of possible dwarf planets, ThePurgatori has also made numerous unreferenced additions (now reverted). In this edit where they added TNOs to the "Likeliest dwarf planets" which includes TNOs with *only* measured diameters published in scientific literature, 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, here.

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 noticeboards