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

Revision as of 23:52, 11 August 2014 view sourceElaqueate (talk | contribs)5,779 edits →Extreme personal attack: Was 1RR in effect here?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:18, 23 January 2025 view source EMsmile (talk | contribs)Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users60,042 edits →Voluntary restrictions: formattingTag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- When adding protection templates, place them inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded --><noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__		{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 700K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 849		|counter = 1177
	|algo = old(36h)		|algo = old(72h)
			|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
	|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
			|headerlevel=2
	}}		}}
			{{stack end}}
	<!--		<!--
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
	|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
	|format=%%i
	|age=36
	|index=no
	|numberstart=826
	|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
	|minarchthreads= 1
	|minkeepthreads= 4
	|maxarchsize= 700000
	|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
	}} -->
			== ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles ==
			{{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 ]
			* on ] and ] grounds
	<!--
			* on ] and ]
	-----------------------------------------------------------
	New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
	Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
	Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	Do not place links in the section headers.
	(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
	----------------------------------------------------------
	Entries may be refactored based on the above.
	---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			*They've been warned about ] and .
	== ] ==
	{{archivetop|I feel we're are approaching the point where this discussion serves no good.There is an RFC on the policy point, no consensus to tar and feather Squeakbox and some of the comments here wholly fail to assume goos faith. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	{{anchor|User:SqueakBox and BLP policy requiring referencing for contentious material.}}
	{{anchor|User:SqueakBox}}
			*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
	Could you take a look at ] edits? This editor insists in having the page ] completely blanked under BLP-complaints. Note the lists is enterely consisting of blue-links, and all the relevant articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". Talk page consensus appears against him, but he seems to ignore it and keeps on edit warring and blanking the page. I invited the editor to nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, especially as he had previously proposed the article for deletion, but he refuses, he just want the article empty. Also look at his edits history, he has a long history of blanking/boldly removing large chunks of sex-related articles. I suggest reading discussions at ] and ], which are quite enlighting. --] 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
	:I am enforcing BLP policy. Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on[REDACTED] (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star. Therefore when somebody appears on a porn star list and they are living a reliable source is required that this person is in fact a porn star. Otherwise we at[REDACTED] have no way of guaranteeing that the person in the article is in fact a porn star. If an article is about porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films a ref is also required that they have appeared in mainstream films, possibly the same ref but both pieces of information must be reliably sourced. If you look here ] you can see Andy the Grump supporting my position and reverting a user for the same BLP violation of restoring material that has been identified as BLP non compliant on its removal and that Cavarrone has also been restoring. Enfrocing BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary. Cavarrone has claimed my arguments which has not helped. I have quoted the relevant BLP policies and would indeed urge an admin to look at this case objectively and not assuming that I am the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I dont want the article empty, I want the page full again but with each living person reliably sourced. I have never proposed the article for deletion though last night Andy did mention that it maybe should be deleted, but this is not an opinion I agree with. I have no interest whatsoever in censoring porn, my interest is ensuring porn lists are BLP compliant and I fail to see how thta is being disruptive. The solution to all this is that we all get on with the hard work of reffing these living people and returning them to this and other articles, there is no substitute for that work when it comes to living people. ♫ ] ] ] 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Nonsense. "Enfrocing (''sic'') BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary", everyone could check if the page is actually blanked or just "BLP enforced". Blanking a page is a statement of fact, not something you can dialectically "decorate". "Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on[REDACTED] (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star" is even more nonsensical as long as all the relevant linked articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". And your claim that you " never proposed the article for deletion" is just false: . You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". ] 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:It looks like Squeekbox is at 5RR and should be given a final warning before blocking. ATG should be cautioned about tag-team edit warring. There is no BLP violation here, and even if there were on a case-by-case basis, then rather than wasting everybody's time getting into a kerfuffle here to enforce prudish mores about adult entertainment they ought to just follow the blue links to make sure each of the articles linked to has a well-sourced and biographically significant statement that the person is in fact a current or former adult entertainment actor. BLP is basically a ], you have a right to do it if you are correct but that doesn't mean you can go around dictating and enforcing your own personal views about Misplaced Pages policy if you are not. I'll refrain from restoring until this is settled here or at BLP/N so that I'm not WP:INVOLVED as a non-admin. - ] (]) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::WP:BLP violations are exempt from 3RR policy. ] (]) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::''If'' they are applied reasonably and properly... --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars. '''None''' of them had a reference for this. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - which states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''." There really isn't any wiggle room here - blanking the article was the only policy-compliant option. The suggestion that because sources supposedly exist elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Misplaced Pages as a source, and if valid sources exist, they must be cited ''in the list''. It should also be noted that the list had no citations for the claims that these individuals appeared in mainstream films either - and many of the films named were redlinked, making the claim entirely unsourced anywhere. It should also be noted that prior to SqueakBox editing the article in January, the list named numerous individuals with ''no Misplaced Pages article whatsoever'' - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. ] (]) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::*Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to ] which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are also listed in the articles for these performers; in other works its the WP version of ]. The assertion that ''any'' of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Misplaced Pages like a source". All the bluelinked items have the sources in their relevant articles proofing the actors are adult actors. It is what our BLP policy prescribes for lists, categories and navigation templates ]. Otherwise, now I need to add an inline source for every actress in ] stating "x is an Italian actress"? Or am I authorized to blank the page "per BLP"? Not to mention that blanking a page is not a "policy-compliant option", it is just silly. ] 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Actually the bLP articles not say lists are BLP exempt, it says they are not BLP exempt, ]♫ ] ] ] 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Misplaced Pages BLP policy. Blanking was obligatory. 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I will take that as a no, so it is your interpretation of policy. Others interpret policy differently. - ] (]) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I think the forced blanking of the list is counterproductive and borderline POINTY if Squakbox and ATG's actions serve to prevent the very improvement they claim to want. However, they are quite correct that a list like this should be supported by references on the article directly. Regardless of ATG's overzealous interpretation of policy, I would personally support unblanking the list iff you or others undertake to source it. But not before, and with the expectation that they would remove unsourced entries after a reasonable time has passed. ]] 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::There does not appear to be a dispute over what Squeakbox did in January, so that is pretty much irrelevant distraction. The obvious solution here is to allow interested editors to go through and source the list (as one has indicated a willingness to do on the talk page), but I suspect that this is impossible to do with Squeakbox edit warring to prevent anything but a blank page. ]] 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That allegation is simply false, ], all I want is to see the entries reliably sourced. If you can provide a diff that shows me deleting a single sourced entry on that apge please do so but if you cannot then please do not claim that I am only interested in a blank page. My only interest is in seeing a BLP compliant article.
	:::::There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone finding references, and adding properly-sourced entries to the list - meanwhile, per WP:BLP policy, the list cannot contain unreferenced entries - this is simply not open to negotiation. ] (]) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{ec}}I think it is an overly strict interpretation of BLP Policy to say that the list is ''required'' to be blanked. If the text of each article does support inclusion in the list, and the articles themselves are properly sourced, I think it would be reasonable to say that inclusion in the list, and the claim that makes, is not contentious. That said, BLP policy strongly favors removal first, and discussion second. Further, the simple way around this is to add citations to the list. We have a lot of lists like this, albeit not involving the porn aspect, where the inclusion criteria is not cited in the list, relying on the article (If we are lucky, many don't have that). ]] 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::(after many edit conflicts, addressing ATG): Can you point to any policy provision blue links in a list article requires a reference citation in the linking article? If not, I'm afraid you're advancing an argument to make policy, not enforce it. The argument that appearing in an adult entertainment production is contentious by definition is questionable as well. I don't believe that BLP is supposed to be a scheme to ] the encyclopedia. - ] (]) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I have no idea what you are asking - WP:BLP policy says that contentious material on living persons must be referenced - and unreferenced claims that individuals are pornographic actors are clearly contentious. It wasn't referenced. It violated Misplaced Pages policy. End of story. ] (]) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I am asking if you know of a policy statement, or a definitive interpretation of policy, that a blue link in a list article requires a reference citation next to the blue link in order to meet WP:V. If so, it is a BLP issue. If not, then you haven't shown that it is a BLP issue.- ] (]) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link is not a reference under any circumstances. ] (]) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I take that as a no, you are aware of no such policy, only your argument that this follows from policy. Others, and Misplaced Pages practice, disagree. - ] (]) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			Most recently there's ], which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.
	:I was one of the editors that discussed the matter with SqueakBox. After we discussed that ] applies to contentious material, SqueakBox didn't seem to understand what WP:BLP meant by contentious material. As far as I can tell, SqueakBox recognizes that the actors mentioned in that article had been in porn movies. Here's my last message to SqueakBox, which wasn't responded to. --] (]) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	Err, why do you claim I dont understand what contentious means. On what basis? Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ ] ] ] 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::WP:BLP policy isn't open to negotiation - it clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced contentions material must be '''removed immediately'''. Whether contributors believe it is true or not is entirely irrelevant. ] (]) 15:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::There's a simple solution for both sides, which is to begin adding some citations, and insist for this specific article that any additions come with a reference citation. However, unless there is a clear policy statement somewhere that a blue link in a list needs to have a citation on both ends of the link, it would be disruptive to carry a novel policy interpretation to edit warring in other articles. That is a policy question that needs to be addressed at BLP/N for a single article, BLP or WP:V if this is a wider issue, not by edit warring. - ] (]) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::This is the solution I proose too, ]. All that is required is relioable sources for the inclusion of these people and that is the only possible solution without a change in policy.♫ ] ] ] 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Policy is already clear and unambiguous - contentious BLP material needs references. There is no policy anywhere that even remotely suggests that a blue link to another Misplaced Pages article counts as a reference. ] (]) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The issue when it comes to any potential administrative action is that IF the interpretation forwarded by AndyTheGrump is correct, then the removals are exempt from edit warring policy. Now I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I don't think we can do anything to stop the removal until consensus is reached that the interpretation is not correct. (Obviously if the entries are fully cited in the list and removed anyway, its a different issue) And again, BLP policy favors removal, so we need consensus to overcome that. ]] 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article! Hence what is required and is easy technically to accomplish is a reliable source for each entry. If we all get on with that it can be done really quickly but debating here wont improve or start to fill up the page at all. This is so for all porn lists and not merely this page. The benchmark is ], fully refd, while ] needs extending to all porn list articles so they can all be made compliant with our BLP policy. Anything else is simply not fair to living porn stars, they are people too♫ ] ] ] 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Not to mention we which actors do you think do not belong on the page, and you have only responded quoting BLP policy rather than pointing out specific examples. ] (]) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The point is that a reference is only '''Required''' when the material is contentious. Many of us don't accept that asserting someone is a porn star, where no one argues its factually inaccurate, is inherently contentious. Obviously, a fully referenced list is better, but I don't think its clear that it is strictly required. ]] 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::If an entirely unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor isn't contentious, we might as well scrap WP:BLP policy entirely. ] (]) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Agree with ] above. What is supposed to mean "Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article"? The point is that the ] article says that he is the President of the United States, then he is certainly eligible for being listed in the List of Presidents of the United States and in other similar lists. The ] article states he is a pornographic actor, then I don't see what is contentious in listing him as a pornographic actor. If someone is arguing the ] article or another bluelinked article is false or poorly sourced, then he should ask the deletion of THAT article. "Unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor"? Just click the bluelink. ] 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::], nobody has even once removed or proposed the removasl of cited material from this article so please do not bring this up as a red herring. If an editor claims the material is contentious then that means the material has been challenged and needs sourcing to become BLP compliant. Anything else is trying to avoid BLP compliance and that is not open to negotiation except on the BLP policy talk page. Claiming neither porn nor mainstream films are contentious is simply not credible for[REDACTED] to take as a viewpoint to be sued to avoid BLP compliance. How is a reliable source not required? Nobody claiming this has shown me one policy statement to back up their claim. ♫ ] ] ] 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::well, claiming that it is contentious to note that Traci Lords, for example, is a former porn star is stretching things considerably. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, accepting that this list requires sources, will you act to prevent any interested editors from unblanking the list for the explicit purpose of sourcing it? ]] 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::*That you have challenged the <s>fact</s>inclusion does not inherently make it contentious, the question is why you challenged it. If it is your position that the people you removed from the list, as a matter of fact, are not porn stars, or that the movies are not in fact mainstream, then yes, they are contentious. But as I understand it, your not disputing the underlying factual basis, but claiming the inclusion is contentious anyway. To provide an example: ] provides inline citations for none of the members of the list, which includes living members. That is fine because no one is contesting the factual basis. If I went and removed the list, or at least the living members of the list, citing BLP policy, but admitted the list is accurate, the inclusion in the list would not all of a sudden become contentious under policy. ]] 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	Seems like the non-content issue is whether an editor can blank an article by claiming that it violates ], when there are objections and there isn't a consensus for that. --] (]) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:The answer to that is yes, see ]. ]] 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::There is a burden for those proposing inclusion of contentious material about living people to establish appropriate sourcing, but if there is a consensus that they have met that burden, or that it is not a BLP issue to begin with, the person trying to blank the article is not entitled to apply ] indefinitely behind a flag of BLP. At some point it becomes disruptive behavior.] (]) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::**Yes, they can, Bob. Our BLP policy does not talk about gaining a consensus or taking note of other users objections and these are not required. If the whole article is a BLP violation policy requires all non BLP compliant material to be deleted immediately and prior to discussion. Yesterday the list was full of people whom editors had decided were porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. Then editors object that I demand reliable source for all the living people on this list. It could equally in its shape yesterday be considered ] because there has been no evidence provided that a single person on that list is actually a porn actor who has appeared in a mainstream film. It has to be the refs and not solely editors who decide who appears in this list. ♫ ] ] ] 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Except in this case Squeak, its a single handed effort by you aimed specifically at porn related articles. It's not a BLP issue, its tendentious and disruptive editing when you are interfering with the efforts of other editors to work on articles. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Monty, In that section is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". I think that is your point? If so, it appears that there was consensus for restoration when it was last removed. --] (]) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I don't see a sufficient consensus anywhere I have looked. My thought at this point is that they best way forward is to just start an RFC at ] on the main question, and leave it to anyone who wants to to work on references in the meantime. ]] 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I presume by your use of the qualifier "sufficient" that you recognize there was a consensus. The section of policy referred only to consensus, "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". There were only two editors there that wanted to remove the list. Four supported keeping it. Also note that we're discussing an established article that over 300 editors have worked on over the years. --] (]) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	===Recreating list===
	Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source. Please help by adding any others that can be sourced, and if not leaving them out and possibly dealing with the linked bio article. Can we agree that this particular article should have sources next to each actor's name (living or not, no need to restrict it to BLP) to establish that they are or were an adult entertainment star? We don't have to agree that BLP requires it, just that we agree to do it here. We do a very similar thing to ensure quality at a very contentious non-BLP article I tend, ]. - ] (]) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. ] but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to ] someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a ] article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. ] 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	* For the record, the most recent and appropriate discussion about lists of names appears to be this ]. No one seems to be questioning that these people are or are not adult industry performers and the first line of every one of their individual articles says as much. The only controversy or contention in play here is that which has been created by SqeakBox IMO. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 16:24, 3 August 2014 (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)
	:::'''Note''' with complete disregard for the ongoing discussions here, Scalhotrod has just restored the WP:BLP-violating material. I ask that he be blocked immediately for provocative behaviour. ] (]) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (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)
	:::: '''Look at the edit'''. He/she was ''adding sources'' to the article and temporarily restored it to add more sources. Indeed, I ask that you look at the edit you're reverting before assuming things, the edit added a lot of references to support the material, I thought that was what you wanted? ] (]) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			::Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. ] 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: (ec - addressing ATG) Did you actually look at the edit you're complaining about and edit warring over? The restored list had citations. We can discuss whether IMDB citations are appropriate, but please be more careful. You've also violated 3RR now here on AN/I over the section heading. You need to cool down a bit. - ] (]) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. ] (]) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. ] 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
			:*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
			:*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
			:*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
			:*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
			:*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
			:*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
			:*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
			:Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}}
			::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
			::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}}
			::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
			::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}}
			::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::The restored material lacked citations for most of the entries, and there is no way that we can ] - it simply isn't trustworthy enough for this. ] (]) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (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)
	:::::::Can you please promise not to violate 3RR, at least on this discussion page? - ] (]) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			:*'''Support''' Ban.
			:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
			::I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. ] 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			*'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' This is editor is still creating dog poor articles ]. This is the second in days thats been speedied. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. ] ] 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Me (DragonofBatley) ==
	::::::::Can you please promise not to violate WP:BLP policy? ] (]) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (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)
	:::::::::So, no? Okay, you're only weakening your case by edit warring a section title here. This looks like sheer tendentious in trying to force your opinions on the community, not about policy. And yes, I do abide by BLP policy. Nobody has hinted here that I have not. - ] (]) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (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)
			:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
			:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
			:I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
			:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::These are good points.
			:::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ]&nbsp;] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ]&nbsp;] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
			*:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.
			Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
	::::::::::WP:BLP policy is not 'my opinion' - it is policy arrived at by the community, and via input from the WMF. Trying to weasel-word around a clear and explicit requirement for referencing of contentious material by falsely claiming that blue-links are some sort of 'reference' doesn't look like abiding by policy to me. ] (]) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::So I'm violating policy by even pointing out that your argument has no policy justification? That logic is beyond the deep end, we're not even in the swimming pool. Good luck with that :) - ] (]) 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:What we are objecting in this discussion, and what colleague SqueakBox seemingly does not want to get it, is the heavy-handed dealing of a one-shot deletion of a long-standing page without any discussion whatsoever. Then his completely taking over the page and now I see also the talk page too, as a one-against-all heavy handed intransigent approach that boils down to I know best and what you say doesn't matter, I will have my way. Sure we always assume good faith of editors, so assume good faith in us objectors to your heavy handed approach if not a one man campaign of "win it all or lose it all". It shouldn't be that way. It is your approach that led colleagues to refer you to this Administrator page, after all attempts of reconciling with other views failed with you and the page remained blank despite it all. The solution was very clear. If SqueakBox could have put '''specific names''' (even if they are 10-15-20 I don't mind) and explained '''the reason he excluded them''', I am all for it. Admittedly the list may have included a few such names. But what is very clear from the list we had before his "one-editor intervention" was this: One: Are their clearly tens of pornographic stars listed there on the list whose pornographic status, fame and credit is beyond any doubt? The resounding answer yes! Absolutely a resounding number of those listed there are porn stars. The list contains tens of such non-contentious porn stars (now deleted without any justfication). TWO: have these clearly established pornographic stars been also in non-pornographic films. The answer is again a resounding yes. An actor is an actor. Porn stars are actors and some very talented. Plus some have obvious charisma and at times a great following for various reasons we like them or approve of them or not. So they were offered roles by mainstream film directors and they did play sometimes very impressive roles in non-pornographic films that matter. This list is about them as actors beyond just being some "piece of meat" on the screen. THREE: Is this list needed. Sure! Absolutely. We should acknowledge in Misplaced Pages that porn starts are not just porn stars but veritable artists. Their non-pornographic roles should be highlighted, I say even encouraged, and not oppressed. This was precisely the raison d'etre of this article and the useful purpose it played. This is what you deleted citing an "umbrella" clause or policy that you used. Clearly there are porn stars beyond a shadow of doubt found on the list and clearly showing in non-pornographic sometimes very mainstream movies as well. These are the people SqueakBox eliminated in one massive non-substantiated edit and then prevented any development of the list for all intents and purposes. He did this by deleting ''en masse'' simply citing a few actors (just a few) where pornographic status was not clear or substantiated. So the full list (with almost 90-95% legit names and entries) disappeared instead of the list being edited, reformed and cleaned up. Again, what you should have done was to pinpoint those specific individuals you were objecting to and take them off the list. What you did was to take a well-formulated policy we have and applying it indiscriminately even on actual porn stars who did appear in non-pornographic roles and whose status was beyond any shred of doubt. And no, we don't actually need references for each and every one of those listed there as you want. No Misplaced Pages lists we have are fully referenced for each line we insert. That's absurd... Applying them for porn stars simply because they are porn stars doesn't make sense. Keep the list with the obvious ones (a huge majority of what the list was) and remove the "contentious list of specific individuals" (very few indeed as far as I can tell), not delete the whole very useful list. This is your task. Make a list of the ones you believe are "contentious". Keep the rest for what is a very useful list ] (]) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::], you cannot accuse me of not discussing this, I have discussed it extensively. On the other hand BLP says offending material must be removed prior to discussion. On the porn actors in mainstream films article it may have been long standing but contained nothing more than the unsourced assertion that various individuals have been porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films. I have explained clearly the reason I have excluded all the names, it is because they are likely living people and their inclusion in the list was not reliably sourced. How much clearer than this can I get. All entries require reliable sources that they were or are porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films, that is 2 pieces of information that need to be reliably sourced for every person. The only reason i removed anyone from the list was the failure tor eliably source those 2 pieces of information, if that meant removing everyone dont blame me. I didnt add these people without reliable sources so I am not to blame for their removal. And you are wrong about no list being BLP complaint, see ]. Claiming that we dont need to reliably source as we have in that article is essentially calling for the breaking up of our BLP policy because people cannot be bothered to reliably source. And this sex actors in mainstream films list was also WP:OR|original research]] as it was editors alone who made the decisions about inclusion without having to justify those decisions with reliable sources to back up their assertions that x,y, and z were porn actors and have appeared in mainstream films as would normally be the case with anything that appears to be original research. The claims that "we know the info is correct" are not the watermark[REDACTED] demands in ensuring we are a good encyclopedia. ♫ ] ] ] 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	*I have opened an RFC on the policy question at ] if anyone would like to participate there. ]] 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	As a random example, consider ]. I see no citations that these guys are actually major league baseball players. Should I therefore blank the list? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Do you think someone would sue for libel if they were included in error? ] (]) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment/Question''' Doesn't policy say the sources don't have to be in the specific article/list but must be on WP? Aren't there sources at the articles for blue linked names that identify the individuals as adult/mainstream film performers? I think when there is contention inline sources are ''preferable'' but my understanding is that they are not mandatory. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to copy the appropriate sources from the linked articles. Just my two pennies. - - ] (]) 19:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes it is pretty widely accepted, and has been for a long time, that lists may have the inclusion criteria sourced either on the list page or in the article the list element refers to. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>20:00,&nbsp;3&nbsp;August&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
	:::Accepted in which policy is that, ]? None I have seen. Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. Saying BLP violations are widely accepted is not exactly true either. If an article says someone is a porn actor performing in mainstream films a reliable source is required in that article or verifiability fails and we do not knowingly allow verifiability to fail with BLP, especially not in contentious areas like porn. Please, ], do quote the policy you mentioned which you alleged allows users to evade BLP and then we can discuss it but "doesnt policy say" isnt that. You need to be certain about your policy assertions coming here not thinking aloud. You are of course right that it is not a hard task to add reliable sources which is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. People should just get on and add them instead of arguing as to why porn lists are BLP exempt, which ultimately threatens the BLP protection[REDACTED] offers to porn workers, that protection is known as verifiability and there are no excuses for ignoring BLP non complaince ever for even one minute. ♫ ] ] ] 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::'''Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support.''' That is precisely the point. To be added to "list of Saxophone players" ''either'' ]'s article must support his saxophony, or a cite must be given in the list. Clearly the article is not allowed to contain "contentious unsourced assertions", so by implication neither is the list. The only difference for lists is avoidance of make-work duplication of citations. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>00:02,&nbsp;4&nbsp;August&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
			::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)
	===Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources===
			::::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)
	It has just been brought to my attention that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. ] (]) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (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.
	OK, so I get that Andy and Squeak are trying to use the standpoint that ''anything'' involving the Adult industry is contentious and/or controversial, but we're not talking about completely unsourced claims. No one seems to be arguing that these performers were in these films or tv shows, nor does anyone seem to be contesting that they are in fact performers in the adult industry. If the list is populated by notable porn actors who have an article, why is there so much discourse over this?
			: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.
	As for Andy's claim that no one accidentally listed on those other lists wouldn't be offended is pointless. Anyone can be offended about anything, the recent discussions about Civility all over this site easier demonstrate that. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.
	:The claims are completely unsourced in the list that makes the claim - contrary to what the MOS requires. And yes, unsourced claims that people are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. As indeed are assertions 'sourced' to sources that don't actually back up the assertion, as I have shown occurred as a result of your recent edit. ] (]) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, <b>this needs to be a final warning</b> in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -] (]) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::"Self evidently", oh really, that's a new one. On a list titled "List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films", no one has yet to challenge that any of them are not in the industry. Please elaborate... --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:01, 3 August 2014 (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.)
	::I have no knowledge of porn stars, Scalhotrod, so I am indeed arguing that all the unsourced people on the list may not be porn stars and I want to verify that they are. That I could not do so with reliable source yesterday is depressing. My knowledge of mainstream films is not much better so a reliable source as to that claim is definitely also a good idea for all living individuals without exception. If you argue that porn work is not contentious it then becomes hard to argue that ANYTHING is contentious outside criminal behaviour, which would fundamentally undermine BLP policy and make[REDACTED] a more hostile place for all the living people mentioned in the encyclopedia. ♫ ] ] ] 21:25, 3 August 2014 (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)
	::::I'm not the only one challenging your belief system Squeak, its just not your day to make this assertion. Not that many, in fact Andy and maybe 1 or 2 others by my count are agreeing with you. Even then their not really saying why. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::], f you believe you have a consensus to change our BLP policy you should perhaps propose a change there and see how the wider community takes to it. I have been waiting 6 months for this day so today is as good as any day and I feel very satisfied with the progress made so far, I was not expecting it to be easy. But I am at least confident that your consensus of porn article interested editors do not trump our BLP policy as it is currently written. As I am sure you are aware by now nowhere does BLP say that a consensus of editors can choose to ignore BLP and with good reason as this would withdraw the protection that BLP offers to living people mentioned in articles. So go and change the policy then come back and we can talk about what to do on these porn list articles. But until then BLP as it is currently written stands. ♫ ] ] ] 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::No one is saying that BLP needs to be changed, most disagree with your interpretation and application of it. Luckily its just the porn articles that you are focusing on, so I'm still advocating for a Topic Ban. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:21, 3 August 2014 (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).
	:::::::How exactly do you disagree with my interpretation of BLP? Are you saying claims that someone is or was a porn actor and is now in mainstream films do not need reliably sourcing. How do you interpret BLP to allow you to do that? How you propose to achieve a topic ban for enforcing BLP should be interesting to see and of course I can say now I am not willing to abide by any agreement that allows other editors to ignore BLP standards in porn lists while barring me from enforcing BLP compliance. Youn cannot evade BLP by proposing topic bans on people who annoy you because they wont allow you to add the names of living people unsourced to articles. You should start thinking about the protection[REDACTED] needs to give to porn workers as real living people and not just thinking about your own, selfish needs as an editor who does not want to be BLP compliant. And you would only propose a topic ban in order to evade BLP compliance in porn articles. Perhaps you are the one who should face the topic ban if you persist in knowingly adding material that you have been told is a BLP violation, ie unsourced material about a living person in an article. ♫ ] ] ] 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			::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: ].
	::::::::Your admitted ignorance of this subject disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the alleged "contentiousness" of listing well-known porn actors as being porn actors. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			::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 ===
	*MOS is a guideline. This particular item was added in July 2013, in the middle of a discussion about this precise question. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>00:14,&nbsp;4&nbsp;August&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
			I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::], where does BLP require one to be knowledgeable in the field of whatever BLP area one ois looking to see complaince in? It does not require such specialist knowledge and so you are stretching it somewhat claiming I have no right to be editing these articles. My lack of knowledge means I demand BLP from any likely living person mentioned and to require reliable sources in no way requires a knowdedge of porn. I do on the other hand have experience of working with BLP on[REDACTED] over a number of years which makes me eminently suitable to demand BLP compliance so you wont be able to shut my voice up merely by claiming I am not knowledgeable about porn stars. An your claim that one has to be knowledgeable abpoiut porn to identify the porn industry as contentious re BLP is not aa serious argument. You cannot just exclude other editors for demanding simple BLP compliance though you are not the first who has tried to do so since yesterday. I dont appreciate people claiming my voice should be excluded just for demanding BLP compliance as if editors are more important than the subjects of articles. ♫ ] ] ] 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
			::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Where do BLP rules allow you to invent "contentiousness" which is strictly a product of your own ignorance of the subject? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
			::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			{{U|voorts}} - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. ''Sound of evil laughter.'') --] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How's this draft proposal: {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace<ins>, converting redirects to articles,</ins> or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
			::Having seen on ] yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
			::And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. ]] 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. ] (]/]) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - ] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: an infobox? a few words about local authority area? a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. ]] 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to ], never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. ]] 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks for the question ]. To clarify, I meant '''any''' expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing ''anywhere'' on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - ] (]) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " ]] 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Okay, looks good. @] what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{U|Cremastra}} - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. ] (]) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Hold on. This goes much further than @] wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? ] (]) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at ]. I've lost patience. ]] 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
			:::::::::::::# No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
			:::::::::::::# No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
			:::::::::::::# No editing in mainspace.
			:::::::::::::]] 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.{{pb}}{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):{{pb}}
			::'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
			::'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
			::'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
			:{{pb}}The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but '''would personally favour Option B'''. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into ], a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. ] (]) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: I made some changes. ] (]/]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::p.s. ] this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? ] (]) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. ] (]) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree. ] (]) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] and @]: option C amended below. ] (]/]) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? ]] 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. ] (]/]) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s) ===
	===Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?===
			{{cot|Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.}}
	I'm quoting from an earlier comment...
			{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
	* Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ] ] ] 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)'']
			:'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
	Sorry, come again? {{u|SqueakBox|You're}} saying that working in the Entertainment industry is contentious??? How? Why? --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD.
	:YES! I have worked with one well known Hollywood person who was very unhappy about BLP non compliance in his article so I speak from personal experience when I say that the entertainment industry often IS contentious when it comes to BLP. Far more contentious than many other fields of human endeavour and especially when very famous people are concerned. Mocking my BLP concerns is not a good way of making a serious point or proving your rightness. ♫ ] ] ] 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			:'''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.
	::Ah, so the personal bias is finally revealed; and you're throwing in anything sex or porn related for good measure? But none of what you just stated is any kind of explanation or justification for your actions on the series of articles that you blanked. By the way, I've worked in the Entertainment industry too and have my own listing on IMDb. I don't know what the problem was/is with the person your worked with, but I suspect that it had more to do with that person not liking how they were represented in the press rather than on Misplaced Pages. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::My personal bias here, ], is towards defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP and I make no apologies for this bias. When I say I worked with someone fromm Hollywood I mean at[REDACTED] as SqueakBox not outside wikipedia. The problem had to do with the person having poorly or unsourced information in his biography, not how he appeared in the press itself, so you are wrong in your speculation on that BLP case. ♫ ] ] ] 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::So you did or did not know some famous Hollywood person, I'm confused by your previous statement. If I do understand it correctly, then you actually have no direct experience working in the Entertainment industry, correct? --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::This is an extremely ]. One person complained ''on-site'' that they felt their article does not comply with BLP? How does this justify unprovoked blanking of a list of actors? ]] 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	: Yes, it's absolutely contentious. How is this even in dispute? The porn industry is marginalized and actors in adult films frequently face unfair and damaging reactions inside and outside the entertainment industry. We can imagine a world where everyone has a sex-positive view about adult films and the actors in them, but ''we don't live in that world''. As such, marking someone as an adult film actor in a list like this without inline sourcing is problematic. ] (]) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::"] starred in '']''." Is this statement contentious? If so, how? ]] 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: Because it's in a list that (by definition) identifies her as a porn star. It's not the page for ]. So, for instance, if ] is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera. I'm not saying the list shouldn't exist (I mean, I think it shouldn't, but that's not really a likely outcome), but membership is certainly contentious. ] (]) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a ] issue? The purpose of this project is not to facilitate an individual in creating a public image; the purpose is to create an encylopedia based on verifiable information. ]] 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::: "''Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a ] issue?''" Only if that actor is editing the page. I'm not sure I understand the comment. I understand the basic concepts, and I understand that Misplaced Pages has lots of pages which contain neutral, verifiable and true information that some people wished weren't on there, because it reflects poorly on a subject. But let's not adorn ] with too much significance for humanity. You say that the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, and I agree! I'm saying is that the claim that someone deserves an entry on this list is by itself contentious and should be supported by some sourcing indicating that it's not just an intersection of iafd and imdb. If not, we're building a directory of entries notable largely because the subject has personal and professional stigma associated with it. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be judicious about sourcing it. ] (]) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::] describes any instance where the edit is made with outside goals. So no matter who does it, someone removing an actress from the list because "she doesn't want to be a porn star anymore" is a conflict of interest. I don't really see documenting someone's roles as contentious. Even if it were objectively contentious as described by policy, it would only be so for the initial claim. If I add an actress to the list and cite a statement made in another article and backed by a reliable source, am I making a controversial edit? No. I also don't understand the "where people don't generally get their baps out" part of your statement. This subdiscussion is specifically pornography-related. Generally, you're going to see more than just bare "baps". The issue about IMDb and IAFD is more an issue of reliable sources than it is citing your sources. If there is a problem regarding the sources used, then I have no objection to removing the entry and raising the question "Can we get a reliable source for this?", but if the source ''is'' reliable and is on the subject's page backing the categorization, why is it a problem? ]] 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: Sorry, that's not a definition of COI I'm familiar with. If someone is editing on behalf of someone or in exchange for payment/recognition/whatever, that's a COI. Otherwise it's not. The "get your baps out" bit was to point out that yes, we're building a reference for all of humanity, but we can certainly weigh the public interest in this sort of list against some purported harm. So we're not talking about soft-pedaling a conviction or scandal due to BLP (which happens sometimes and shouldn't), but building a list that's interesting solely because the two industries are much less porous than, say "dramatic actors in comedic films". My point about reliable sources was this: We have sources for the cast lists of notable films. We also have sources identifying actors as adult film stars. What we should have is a source which connects the two. Those sources do exist, especially for particularly notable AV stars. In response to the below comment, it's ''not'' a separate issue. It's the animating issue of this entire discussion. Without it, we're making a ] of actors based on a classification which is itself plainly contentious. ] (]) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::It's sort of bolded in the first paragraph of ]: {{xt|When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.}} "I don't want to be a porn star anymore" is an outside interest, ''regardless of who is advancing it'', because it is not within the scope of Misplaced Pages's goals. Whether or not an actor should be included on the list if they meet the criteria is certainly an issue here, but the exact definition we should use for inclusion is a content issue, and we should not be discussing it here. ]] 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::: {{ec}} That's what the text says, but interpreting it to mean that an editor with a particular editorial viewpoint has a COI is strained and tendentious. There's no reading of COI which supports the view that plain editing, without an outside material interest, is COI editing. Especially because it presumes that one editorial position is somehow magically advancing the aims of[REDACTED] while another is not. ] (]) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Misplaced Pages. Editing against these goals would be a COI, because I can't imagine any case where an editor would believe (for example your statement: {{xt|if ] is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera.}}) that an actress ''wanting'' to get out of the business and have everyone forget she was ever there is a valid reason to remove her. It's against the mindset of the project, and if I saw an editor doing that, I would immediately raise the question "Who are you to this person?" ]] 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{U|Protonk}}, I would completely agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that in this instance every single entry on the list had an entire article describing and proving that these people are in fact in the adult industry. No red links, no text only non-links, just blue links for each person. Inclusion on the list is not contentious, its just data. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That is your assertion, ], but not one I expect you have even bothered to check yourself. And if you had, so what? You having gone through the list does not make it verifiable for me. And until you come up with reliable sources for every single person on that list I will take your statement as an unproven assertion and not as the fact you want us to take it for. Our verifiability is reliable sources and not editors who claims to be experts in a subject. ♫ ] ] ] 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: What determines membership? A notable porn star has a credit on a notable film? Or is the essential element of list membership actually noted by a source? Meaning, is Misplaced Pages the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? ] (]) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::: That's a separate issue, and it would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. We shouldn't distract ourselves with what to include when we haven't yet established a consensus on whether to include them at all. ]] 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::If I'm not mistaken, before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry.]] 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Ok, let's take a different example. Say we have male actors whose career started in their late teens after appearing in a Bryan Singer film. For each actor, such a fact is verifiable and would be cited and noted in their article. Further, we have the allegations that Singer traded access for sexual favors. That (contentious and potentially damaging WRT BLP as it is) can be cited and supported in Singer's article. We could, under this framework, make ] and justify it by noting that both conditions for membership on the list are present in the linked articles. But we wouldn't, because that would be monstrous. That's a deliberately unfair example and it's probably not something we would maintain even with sourcing, but it's not ''that'' far off. ] (]) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	* is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Misplaced Pages porn articles can cause. Let's not pretend this isn't an issue or that porn acting is merely an uncontentious job in the "entertainment industry". Even seemingly uncontentious jobs like (non-porn) modeling can be contentious. found being labeled a model by Misplaced Pages quite controversial. ] <small>(])</small> 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Your first example, and one thats trounced out regularly, is a case of mistaken identity that ''happens'' to be associated with Misplaced Pages. The actor example is laughable. Back to the subject at hand, no one is disputing (or confusing) the fact that every person on the list is question is in the adult industry; their articles prove that. Inline references were then provided to show that they had been in mainstream productions. Nothing shoddy was even attempted, but how 2 editors choose to respond is ], naive, and ignorant. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::So if everything is on the up and up, and sources are so readily available, why can't one of those editors arguing in favor of the list take a bit of time away from arguing about it in multiple fourms and slap some references in the list article? ] <small>(])</small> 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The ones who have a problem with the list should assume responsibility for reviewing it - especially as the chief complainant here admits to having no knowledge of the subject. By fixing the list himself, maybe he'll learn something. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::On Misplaced Pages, the onus is on those who wish to include potentially controversial material to insure that it is properly cited. ] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Two problems. First, mass deletion of sourced content is disruptive no matter what the excuse, and the community usually will not stand for it. Second, the information is properly cited. This needless ruckus is over citing methodology, not whether this information is reliable sourced. - ] (]) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::One problem. The content wasn't sourced. A blue link isn't a source. Not ever. ] (]) 19:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::You've made this silly argument enough times that everyone has read it by this point. Of course the information is sourced. You just want one of the sources copied from one place to a second place. - ] (]) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::What I want is for articles to comply with policy. WP:BLP policy says contentious content on living persons must be sourced. Nothing anywhere in Misplaced Pages asserts that a blue link is a source. The existence of a blue link proves nothing beyond the fact that the subject has an article on Misplaced Pages. Nothing... ] (]) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::You are inventing contention where there isn't any. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It looks like a straw man argument with a dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeatedly claiming that blue links are held out as sources in order to argue against it, instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that they're proposing copying some of the sources from the articles back to the list. - ~~
	::::::::::Wikidemon is exactly right. What Andy and other's are asking is that when a list is created about people (presumably just those in the adult film industry?) that there be a reaffirmation of already sourced content. That's what this discussion is about is whether editor's should be required when compiling a list of people to reaffirm already sourced content. Because when a list is compiled from existing articles on WP that are reliably sourced, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made labout the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry.]] 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes. It's certainly important for someone compiling such a list to be sure that the entries belong on the list. Someone had suggested categorization instead of lists. Guess what: Categories don't have citations. You have to go back to the article to ensure that the entry belongs in that category. Just as with a list. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Is there any reason why we cannot just copy the sources used in the original articles for use in the list article? This seems like a legalistic or courtroom debate over something easy to fix! ] (]) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::It takes many hours of work, and the last editor that attempted this was reverted almost immediately. Twice. ]] 04:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Can you provide a quick diff for one or both of those reverts? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I twice invited ] to check the refs of the bluelinks of the ] entries to verify that that they were indeed porn-stars (bluelinks not as "refs", but as leads to finding them). He stated he was unable to verify that many of them were porn actors (see ]. The underlying articles state that they were and have refs (and some even use (porn star) or similar as a disambiguation-term in their article title). Based on those aspects, we seemingly have tons of ''actual bio articles'' (not just lists thereof) that are BLP problems by making these claims with bogus refs. He twice ignored my suggestion to push for remedying at that level. But I cannot ] of his statement that he could not verify the claims. The first two from the autobiog list that he says he could not verify were easy to verify from the linked refs in their articles. I added them as refs and he did not contest. And he also removed ones that did have substantial refs and discussion of high notability in the genre even within that ] article itself, just not in the list section. He also rejects cites to the autobiographies themselves because "google books is not a sufficient ref according to our reliable sources policy". If a person writes that he/she was a porn star (even in the title of the autobiog) and the publisher's blurb/summary of the book uses similar wording to describe this as a point of fame, isn't that pretty definitive and reliable?
			==== Uninvolved editors ====
	::::I don't know much about this genre, and I am not often involved in "contentious" BLP claims (for whatever definition of that term you could envision). Obviously anyone can actually dispute (or even merely claim as disputable) any info, and adding cites to improve verifiability is a worthwhile activity in any place one finds it deficient. But I think this edit pattern is based on taking some intersection of BLP+RS policies to a nonsensical extreme or taking an overly disruptive and inefficient approach to solving what BLP problems that actually do exist. ] (]) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (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)
			*'''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)
	::::::So ], demanding refs for people labelled as porn stars without a relable source on an article that is not even a list just a plain article is taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme? What then would not be taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme involve in your eyes? Never enforcing it. Or just not for porn stars or living being alleged to be porn stars? And you are an admin? OMG! ♫ ] ] ] 23:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:For the sake of consistency, I invite SqueakBox to start blanking ] as many of the contentious allegations that the men listed on the page are in fact politicians are unsourced. While we're at it, I believe ] should also be blanked as there is no sources indicating that the Nobel laureates are indeed female, and that can also be contentious. Some sources on ] do not specifically indicate that the politicians belong to that particular political party; that should also be partially blanked. On a more serious note, I realise that if there is some concern about the actual occupation of some of the individuals on the page and that the occupation is actually ''contentious'', then it may merit removal. However this is simply absurd. I challenge anyone to explain why it is more contentious to be a porn star than to represent a specific political party. &mdash;] 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::] outlines some of the stigma attached to being a real porn worker, if you can show me a similar article about the stigma of being involved in the nobel area you will have a point, until then though, I wont take what you have to say onboard too much. IMO the hostility some editors here on[REDACTED] show towards porn workers is very similar to the contemptuous beliefs held in the wider society. ♫ ] ] ] 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Sure there is stigma in many corners of America and in most but not all places in the English-speaking world (remember, this is not just an American project). There is also stigma about a number of other things that society basically accepts or puts up with such as being a lawyer or politician, being Jewish, gay, or African-American, being disabled or mentally ill, and so on. All of these are ''potentially'' contentious labels and deserve some extra attention whether the claim is made in an article, category, list, lede, anywhere. The concern is that if we declare an entire topic area to be inherently contentious to the point where Misplaced Pages's coverage of that topic area suffers, we're carrying on and contributing to society's shunning. If every last mainstream actor, film, role, etc., gets unreferenced lists but we set a higher bar for porn, we're helping to keep it underground. I do think we need to give some extra thought before calling someone a porn star, not just that we have a good source but that it's actually relevant to their notability. So it's okay in the ] article that she's introduced as an "American socialite, actress and entertainer" even if the actress and entertainer parts are dubious. Many people are called philanthropists, businesspeople, or educators on very flimsy grounds, but that's an accolade. But we would have to think very carefully before saying she's a porn star just because she's been in a porn production. - ] (]) 00:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Seriously? Having political preferences, and expressing them, are within societal norms for everyone in a free society. Having a gender is a given. You gotta source someone working in porn because, unlike having a political party or a gender, saying someone is a porn star is libelous if they are not. Performin sex acts in public, no matter how jaded we have gotten to it, is still not within societal norms. ] (]) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::It is the same situation, and it is consistent with the arguments raised here. Just imagine wrongly including a pedophile or a serial criminal in a member Nobel Committee list or in the Indian chief ministers list, potentially it is even more contentious. ] 10:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::] aside, I find it odd that so many people are pushing the bizarre fiction that being a porn star is just another random occupation that nobody would ever find controversial and thus couldn't possibly have any BLP implications for real people and their lives off of Misplaced Pages. ] <small>(])</small> 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::So is every single instance of every politician (another just as controversial occupation) referenced across this site? If its not, then you're just being anti-porn. Which is OK, but its better if you just admit it rather that argue this stance. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I love porn. You're being anti-]. ] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::OK, that was a bit much, my apologies. I'm just saying that there are other controversial occupations that Editors don't seem to pick on in the same way that porn is. If mainstream actors are on a list, no one demands redundant references that they are actors, same goes for politicians. In my opinion, there is a clear anti-porn (not you) bias on this site. Sheesh, we have a list article ] that has few references. Granted many are dead (or presumed), but no one is scrutinizing that list to the degree that anything porn related is. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The people with the anti-porn agenda here are those like ] and others who dismiss the BLP protection we at[REDACTED] offer to porn workers by claiming it is not a contentious profession and want to weaken our coverage of porn at[REDACTED] by making it not reach encyclopedic standards, ie verifiability throughb reliable sources. I have a strong pro porn workers agenda and hope the day will come when porn workers are not stgmatized and when the porn industry has shed its misogynist, prejudiced world view to create better quality porn. So count me among the pro porn activists here. ♫ ] ] ] 00:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	===Time for a ruling===		==== Involved editors ====
			:{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Seems like it's time for a ruling by an administrator. --] (]) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (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)
			== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
	:A ruling on what? Admins don't determine content issues, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus here that anyone should be sanctioned regarding behaviour. ] (]) 16:05, 5 August 2014 (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.
	:Andy is right here. The only solution is going to be to source the list. That does not require any ruling by an admin. Nor does the fact that most people involved could have handled themselves and/or communicated better. ]] 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			Diffs:
	::The content issues are a distraction from the behavior issues which are in the purview of this page, e.g. alleged disruptive behavior by edit warring against a consensus. It's time for a ruling by an administrator. The content issues can be continued on the article's talk page. --] (]) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
	<small>*'''Not guilty by reason of insanity''' What are we talking about again? I haven't even read this thread or know who it's about.--v/r - ]] 21:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)</small>
			* 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)
	:::], are you asking for those who re-added material that had explicitly been labelled non BLP compliant in the edit summary and on the talk page. Because you, if my memorey serves me, were one of the offenders. As you know BLP says in the opening that ADDING material in this way is a blaockable offence, and indeed from what i can see it is the only blockable offence anyone has committed. BTW I am asking for anyone to be blocked myself! ♫ ] ] ] 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
	*What this unduly overly long thread is really about is , which is blanking article content & then immediately trying to have it deleted, which has been the kind of conduct that has gotten other Misplaced Pages users sanctions against them in the past here at AN/I. This thread is about conduct, ''not'' article content. Article content issues should be (and are being) discussed elsewhere, not here. ] (]) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
	**This deletionist problem can be solved by abolishing "list articles" altogether and using categories instead, because categories don't require redundant citations. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
	***That might be the ultimate solution, but has anyone had a chance to go through all of the list articles (or a sample of them, realistically) to see if the problem that we have here is prevalent? I kind of get the impression from the debate that the main issue is with accusing people of being porn stars without citations provided in the line. If that's the case, then list articles aren't the problem -- articles about porn stars are. Unless this issue is central to lists, it might be unfair to have us go through every list article on[REDACTED] and transmute them into categories. It also would still anger Squeakbox and Andythegrump since categories won't have citations and they might still consider that a ] article. ] (]) 22:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
	****The problem is that Squeak didn't bother to look at the articles - he just said, "No redundant citation, so it's fair game to delete." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			* 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)
	*****Maybe so, but that's hardly the fault of list articles, is it? I feel like whatever answer we get from the RFC over at ] won't be that we should go ahead and delete all list articles. ] (]) 02:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
	******(ec) ] , the first list that Squeak blanked, initially setting off the parent thread, was restored and direct citations added by a number of editors over the course of several days. AFAIK it was not found not to contain any people who were not porn stars, and sourced as such in the linked articles. If the goal were simply to quality-check the list to make sure there are no mistakes, it could have been done in a fraction of the time. I don't think any of them are "accused" of being porn stars, they are, and it is part of their professional bios. That is all a content policy issue, but the fact that there was no problem here to begin with tends to support the observation that there was no emergency worth troubling so many community members over. - ] (])
			* 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-->
	*******To Alicb: implementing any outcome of the RfC, if there is in fact an outcome, would be a further decision for the community. That will likely end up back here if people go cowboy as enforcers. - ] (]) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			::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)
	===Nominated for deletion===
	See ]. ] (]) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (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)
	:Yes, let's see that. AndyTheGrump is nominating for deletion a list article for lack of references, and at the same time based on a particular interpretation of BLP which is ]. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the interpretation of policy is settled, instead of ] by starting debates at venues away from the ones where you've been questioned. ] (]) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			*:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::How about ''actually reading'' my rationale for deletion? I nominated it for deletion not because it is unreferenced, but because there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the subject matter (a trivial intersection) meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. ] (]) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (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)
			== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
	The nomination for deletion was closed by an administrator with the result to '''Keep'''. --] (]) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (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.
	:I have asked the closer to revert, and/or to provide an explanation for this precipitate action. If none is given, I shall raise the matter at ]. Closing an AfD after ''five hours'', when few uninvolved contributors have had a chance to look at the issue seems entirely unjustified to me. ] (]) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) {{Diff2|1264943166|a message}} for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person {{Diff2|1264946563|made a discussion on the talk page}} about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me {{Diff2|1264940021|this}} message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I {{Diff2|1264940623|didn't understand what exactly was the issue}}, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I {{Diff2|1265117356|wish him merry Christmas}}, he wishes me, everything is fine.
	:: This does need to go to deletion review. There was division on the matter and the nomination was not even open for 24 hours. ] (]) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::It was closed because it was a cynical, bad-faith nomination. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: {{Diff2|1269540618|1}}, {{diff2|1268720318|2}}, {{diff2|1268521356|3}}, {{Diff2|1268313652|4}}, {{Diff2|1268308516|5}}, {{Diff2|1268121077|6}}, {{Diff2|1268119998|7}}, {{Diff2|1268118180|8}}, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is ]. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor ({{u|Augmented Seventh}}): {{diff2|1269323555|1}}, {{diff2|1269333853|2}}, {{diff2|1269126403|3}}. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.
	===Edit warring===
	We're far from the point IMO where anyone deserves a block or ban based on ''this specific incident'' so far, but to preserve the record for the inevitable next time, I just wanted to consolidate a couple now-stale behavioral issues here. Perhaps a closing administrator can consider warning parties against escalating things.
	* 3RR violation on this page (mentioned above)
	* ] and ] issues, process gaming, edit warring a notice I tried to put on the top of the deletion discussion that it was referring to a blanked page. along with nonsense block threats on my talk page.
	* Next time?? I believe ATG and/or Squeak have threatened that no outcome of the RfC at WP:BLP will deter them from repeatedly blanking lists of names. Let's hope they don't, but just noting that if it does happen, we saw it coming. - ] (]) 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Do you really think that drawing attention to the way you attempted to disrupt an AfD nomination by posting a misleading assertion into the middle of the AfD rationale is going to do your case any good? (note that the 'blanked' page had been unblanked shortly after I removed Wikidemon's original misplaced post. And note how Wikidemon continued to edit-war it back in.) ] (]) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Huh? The diffs speak for themselves, my friend. Please don't make up nonsense to try to disparage the good faith editors around here. Whatever your cause you're not doing it any service by being rude, aggressive, edit warring, and process gaming. If you can at least try to get along with other editors instead of making the community's Misplaced Pages experience that much more miserable you might find them a little more open to your efforts. No doubt you'll have a venomous comeuppance for that, so I'll just say in advance, se ya later, gater! - ] (]) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Yup. The diffs speak for themselves - you dumped your commentary right into the middle of my AfD rationale. As for 'good faith' how about showing some by actually finding proper sources for the ] that you seem to think is of such importance to this encyclopaedia? ] (]) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Untrue that. See ya later, gater! - ] (]) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} Not by you, though. You proceeded to and shortly dereafter ; Wikidemon's notice was attempting that editors arriving to the AfD could have an adequate reading of the article that was being debated, and it was accurate at the time it was placed - and it certainly wasn't "in the middle" of your deletion rationale at any point. ] (]) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::'Shortly after'? Two days. And it should be noted that I blanked it because it was being 'referenced' via an unreliable source (IMDb - see ], numerous threads on WP:RSN, etc, etc) that didn't even in some cases state that the persons involved were pornographic actors. ] (]) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, you nominated the article for deletion two days after blanking the content that had been there for about seven years. And, as the point of debate was that the entries had valid references at the linked articles, the fact that IMDB references were placed inline at the list is a red herring. When you blank an article prior to nominating it and keep removing all hints that such content exists, you're breaking a ] and showing very little respect for the editors that come to review the nomination. ] (]) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi {{Diff2|1269543780|replaced}} my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential ] violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to {{Diff2|1269546279|seek clarification}} as to why they did this on their talk page. In {{Diff2|1269548452|their response to me}}, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me {{Diff2|1269576325|this}} message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see {{Diff2|1269577089|this}} edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me {{Diff2|1269580448|this}} message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. {{Diff2|1269580707|This}} edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.
	Working thru this entire thread, I can't help but conclude that SqueakBox has '''way''' too much time on his hands by blanking this article for an incredibly silly reason. And AndyTheGrump violated the policy known as ]. As an Admin, I'm very tempted to sanction one or both of them for wasting everyone's time on this, but I'm going to do the laziest solution: this article is indefinitely protected from further edits until there is a consensus about how to fix it. Now I'll be unavailable for an hour or more, so another Admin is welcome to undo my protection if adults can be found to handle this mess. -- ] (]) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm too old to have too much time on my hands, ], but it is true that I chose a weekend when I had some time as I suspected that doing this would cause a reaction based on the reaction in January when I did a similar thing. Unfortunately I did not have the time in January which is why I withdrew and indeed stopped editing completely for a while. But I would point out that in terms of useful editing tasks these porn article BLP enforcing edits are easily the ones I am most proud of this year because they are the ones which have done most towards protecting the people we write about as well as improving the encyclopedia, and therefore they have been the most useful in terms of use of my time. On the other hand to see the regular stream of editors who would rather go on about their rights as editors (with never a single thought for the living subjects they and we write about) seem to have abundant time on their hands but never enough, in too many cases, to actually add reliable sources or to remove further BLP compliant material, both routine "boring" tasks that are hard work. ♫ ] ] ] 00:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your candor. If you know in advance that something you are about to do will trigger a major spat among other editors, I think you should seriously consider going through one of the many other channels available to resolve disputed content questions. BLP enforcement and its equally emphatic cousin COPYVIO are no exceptions when there is serious legitimate debate over whether the policy even applies. - ] (]) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:There were some adults that started the process of adding references before the full protection, but I will defer to your judgment on this and hopefully in due time, the adults can get back to editing and improving this article in a collaborative effort.--]] 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: In response to a thoughtful request, I've went ahead & unprotected the page. I probably acted too hastily, but anyone reading thru this thread would be puzzled -- if not annoyed -- at the kerfuffle here. Common sense would hold that the articles on these people would be sufficient proof they are porn actors/actresses -- although sourcing their roles in different movies might prove more difficult. (In which cases, the links to the movies should then be removed -- not blanking the whole list in a childish pique!) -- ] (]) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Uninvolved comment; I accept IMDB as an appropriate source for mainstream movie credits (as the ultimate source is the credits in the films themselves, which need not be online). I do not necessarily accept IMDB as an adequate source for working in the adult industry. There are perhaps better sources found in the articles about each actor/actress themselves. --] (] 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::The greater Misplaced Pages consensus would agree that IMBD is inappropriate for sourcing contentious material about living persons: ] ]. --] (] 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - {{diff2|1269549064|here}} they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when ] ] for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of ] without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. ]] 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Uninvolved comment===
	The WP:BLP and other policies make it pretty clear that entries in lists should be properly referenced individually when there is any dispute. If, as many claim here, the article's make the claim that an actor/actress worked in pornography, then it should be a simple case of copying the reference from one list to another; creating a new reference regarding their work in the adult industry from IMDB, as I have seen done here, should be unnecessary (and opens the door for circular referencing as IMDB is itself based on user submitted content, which could have come from Misplaced Pages). Using the IMDB for the mainstream works the actor/actress appeared in would not seem contentious to me, as the source is the movie credits in the film itself, which need not be online. Perhaps the adding of sources could be done in draft space.
	As for the claims that this is merely tedious, I don't really find that credible. If this were an automatically generated category list, then the lack of inline sources would make sense; however as it was a manually generated list, the burden should have been filled when individual entries were added. he "tedious" task would in fact be for the uninvolved editor to click each entry in the list to very the claim was sourced. Knowledge of who worked in the adult industry is not necessarily common. It was entirely appropriate that the list be blanked until sources were added by editors willing to do so. --] (] 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:To actually verify the claim, would they not still have to click the source? No matter where it is. Simply having a source is not verification. The purported tedium is not much different from the ideal case of everything being cited. ]] 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::By your assertion ] they would have to click one link, search through a page and then click another link whereas in my assertion they would only have to click one link. Why create that extra burden for the reader? ♫ ] ] ] 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I never said it wasn't additional work, only that it's hardly much more of a burden. Ideally, there would be a mention of occupation in the lead and an easy to find filmography. Not that hard to find. ]] 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::That is somewhat correct, but as I said, I find claims that properly documenting sources is a "tedious" and thus not warranted to be dubious, and really this applies to both documenting and verifying ''(added a slight clarification in to my comments above)''. In articles or lists involving living persons, Misplaced Pages editors must properly document all claimed facts, especially contentious claims. The mere truth of a claim does not exclude its need to be documented; Misplaced Pages can only repeat factual assertions that can be attributed to external reliable sources. This is simply the entry requirement for creating such lists, not a "tedious" technicality. Lacking proper citations, removing the unsourced material by blanking or otherwise is a perfectly acceptable response. --] (] 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::It would have been much more useful f the time and energy that has been expended on this pedantic discussion had beed used to reference the list in question.] (]) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The list was referenced, reverted, re-reverted, reverted, then referenced again. The issue isn't simply that this list wasn't referenced. There are users arguing ridiculous points and a disagreement on the fundamentals of a policy. It is neither correct nor helpful to tell the users involved in this debate that they could have used their energy to cite this article rather than participate in discussion. ]] 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I agree, I think this is an issue that could be resolved with perhaps a request for comment? It seems elementary to me that, since the original websites for each porn star had citations in order to pass through the WP:BLP and WP:V policies, you could just copy and paste the same references over to the list. For some reason this is not accepted by the editors here, but I am having a hard time parsing why. I think the best bet to resolve this is a request for comment or other dialogue to determine exactly what solution should be. Moving over links seems like the most obvious answer but if that is wrong then that is wrong... ] (]) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::] how does a request for comment help the living subjects we write about? To advise or enforce such a move would certainly involve rewriting our ] policy and to shift the balance of power in favour of editors and away from th living people we write about? Actualy all any editor wants is for reliable sources taken form the bios and added to the list articles, its not that some editors dont want this, its the opposite, its the some editors dont want to be bothered to do this tedious work, as ZFish calls it. You need to understand what is actually going on in order to get your head around it, I am not surprised you cannot get your head around something that actually is not so. ♫ ] ] ] 00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I think that there might have been a misunderstanding here. I am not advocating rewriting ] or violating that policy in any way. I am saying that we should keep the changes that you have made to protect the privacy / sensitivity of living person information who may not be fairly linked to being adult film actors. The RFC is more of a long term approach that I feel would be good so that we can resolve the content dispute in such a way that it is easy to understand. I think we can all agree that there is a dispute here about policy and I feel like an outside impartial approach can help clear things up for everyone involved. I am not disagreeing with you, I am only saying that it would be reasonable as a long-term solution. That does NOT mean that an RFC is the only thing that should be done, only it is something that we should consider to avoid circular arguments in this manner in the future. ] (]) 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*There is an ]. ] (]) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::] This isnt the place for a policydispute, that has to be diecided at the BLP talk page which Guy has linked to. IMO the only responsible approach is the one that puts the living subjects we write about as our number 1 priority. I am not opposed to the RFC I just have no intention of letting it slow down the vital work of BLP compliance in porn articles where possible because we cannot lessen our protection either for porn workers or for those we wrongly cliam of being porn workers, if there are any merely because some editors want to use procedure to slow dwn or evade BLP enforcement so they can get to edit how thye like without consideration for the living subjects they are writing about. ♫ ] ] ] 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. ] (]) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	===A correction===
			::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)
	The BLO policy treats lists and categories identically (]). The policy allows the sources in the article to justify inclusion in the list. Whether this is sufficient to override the requirement that "stand alone" lists require inline sources, I do not have an opinion. --] (] 02:52, 7 August 2014 (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)
	:That article has been advanced at the RfC, I believe the original complaint to justify the removal of the content was because porn was considered to be a contentious subject matter which would require inline citations per BLP.--]] 03:49, 7 August 2014 (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)
	::There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars. So what sourc4es allegedly in the articles confirmed this? None that were verifiable? Having an article is not evidence of being a porn star and it is entirely up to the person adding the material to show that said reliable sources exist. The BURDEN is not on the remover to prove that they do not exist but for the adder to prove they do. So unless someone can verify the sources in the article actually exist these lists are not covered by that BLP point. ♫ ] ] ] 16:02, 7 August 2014 (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)
	::If the articles linked to in the aforementioned list do not have reliable sources, then I support the deletion or blanking of the articles and removal from the list. That would be a clear policy dictate. As a caution, a source need not be online to be "verifiable". --] (] 19:13, 7 August 2014 (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)
	:::What Squeak is saying just above your comment ("There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars") is a falsehood. He never looked at the articles, or he couldn't honestly make that claim. ], for example, is indisputably a porn actor. Had Squeak actually looked at that article, it would be abundantly clear from any number of citations. Squeak's behavior here is not in good faith. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (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)
	::::Looking over the current state of the list/article, I am '''Satisfied''' that at a minimum, the "click through" criteria has been met for all actors/actress not directly cited in the list. I generally support continuing to add direct inline citations (and am glad to see the references to IMBD for inclusion were removed), but do not believe the entire page warrants blanking at this time. Any lingering entries should be given reasonable time to be made compliant, or voluntarily blanked. (I withhold any comment regarding Squeakbox, as I have not personally investigated). --] (] 19:35, 7 August 2014 (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 ===
	===Squeekbox continuing===
	Just a heads up here. {{ping|Squeekbox}} is currently removing blue-linked porn stars from another article, ].. Spot checking the first name removed, there seems to be little doubt and no lack of sourcing that ] is in fact an adult video star. I'm sure others have some opinions so I won't offer mine right now. Thanks, - ] (]) 01:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:And now there are at least 8 in support of this proposal: ''Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed, and under BLP Policy, it may only be restored when properly cited''. That covers a '''lot''' of lists and I would hate to see this indiscriminate blanking carry over elsewhere. I was under the assumption that when a RfC was opened, we waited for a consensus to gel, and that there be a moratorium on blanking until the community weighs in on this whole issue. Are we really going to allow this to continue? Can we at least get an admin involved to address the blanking of articles, as a pre-emptive measure.--]] 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes I am removing BLP non compliant material from the article till it becomes reliably sourced as our BLP policy advises and compels us to. On the other hand adding this material is a BLP violtion when the material has been challenged, asmIhave challenged it. There can be no consensus to stop me because editors are not more important than the living people they write about. This article is not even a list so dont start claiming internal links are sufficient, wikiepdia has rejected this from way back. Why would an admin be required to look at straghtforward BLP enforcement in a highly contentious area like porn. Where in our BLP policy does it state that that arequest for comment means the rights of our living subjects can be dismiseed? Why was a new header with my name on it (sic) made without informing me. That is blatantly against ANI procedure or did you just hope I wouldnt get to discuss what you are discussing about me, ]. That is in itself is totally unacceptable. ♫ ] ] ] 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Hooo Wee! Squeak is going to make it open season on articles (and lists) about Politicians and '''''any''''' other category of living person who any Editor takes issue with and declares it "contentious". --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Stop inventing, ], I never said anything of the sort. I am just a humble editor enforcing BLP in highly contentious areas like porn when I have the time and energy. I may not know who the US's most famous porn stars are but I am interested in sexual issues and have a track records going back years in editing this delicate area enforcing[REDACTED] policies. Some editors, such as ], are aware of this history. I also have a long track record of enforcing BLP. I myself was highly sceptical in the early days (before the BLP policy had been written) but was talked around, by one individual especially who was well known on the site a few years back. ♫ ] ] ] 02:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::He did attempt to notify you by using the {{tl|ping}} template, but he misspelled your name, so nothing happened. It was an honest mistake, cut him some slack. ]] 02:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The burden is on him to get it right, if he cant spell dont blame me. This has to be one of the most spurious entries ever. Reporting an editor for simple BLP enforcement. What policy have I broken in removing unsourced contentious material about living people while citing BLP? If this is a policy offence BLP is already broken but it isnt, there's a surprise. And of course the only ways to stop me are to block me indefinitely or of course change BLP policies. ♫ ] ] ] 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The burden? Why does it feel like you're simply throwing policy names around? Why can't you just '''] that he made the spelling error as an honest mistake, not as some way to slip under the radar?''' ]] 02:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::(ecXn)Indeed a minor WP:FLOP Violation followed by some ridiculous vituperation that seems pretty typical of the course of this dispute. Squeak is already on this thread and in fact seems to have noticed this subtopic before anyone else. I'm deliberately avoiding comment on the underlying issue; this latest deletion appears relevant to the topic of this overall thread - ] (]) 02:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Claiming this was not a new thread about me is being dishonest and you were clearly hoping to get an admin to block me (though what for?) without me being aware of the discussion. Nor have either of you answered any of my points about why I should not enforce BLP when material about living people in an artice which s NOT a list and is about a highly contentious area is not reliably sourced. What admin intervention is required? ♫ ] ] ] 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Ask to you to stop a few days until the relevant RFC is closed is too much? ] 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no. I dont think it looks good that you are even asking me to do so a thing. What about the living people in a an article about Japanese adult video? Or dont they count? This is not even a list its a plain article but I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either. What I will do is to do as arbcom member Newyorkbrad asked and to prioritize, so I am focussing on articles that are most open to abuse, such as this Japanese adult video article, and focussing less say on porn award winners lists or BLP non compliance in bios, for the moment. I certainly cannot promise any more than to follow Brad's advice, just as I stopped editing for 36 hours after his comment sunday night, to let things cool down. ♫ ] ] ] 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::The "contentious material" that is referred to by ] is contentious because someone believes it may not be true. There doesn't seem to be any contention about the material being true in the case of the subject actors being in porn films because that assertion is sourced in the individual articles about the actors. If anyone thinks it is not true, then go to any of the individual articles about the actors and remove the statements that say the person is a porn actor.
	::::::::::SqueakBox wrote, "I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no."
	:::::::::: --] (]) 06:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Err, ], you talk of cases says SOMEONE believes material may not be true. Well I am that SOMEONE. There is on the other hand no requirement on my part to check the article itself. For instance a porn article may assert X is a porn star and when I check the article it may not mention this but still be fully BLP compliant. So what is your point exactly, Bob? The BLP article does not require users to do what your are suggesting so why mention it ehre at an ANI thread, not a place for general discussion but to discuss things that require admin intervention. ♫ ] ] ] 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I won't respond in kind with my own mock outrage for being called "dishonest" here for simply and carefully bringing something up. It is telling about the behavioral issues here, as it tends to shut down meaningful discussion and good faith participation in the content question. - ] (]) 07:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Squeak, we ''are'' requiring that of you, here on ANI, as a behavioral matter that may require administrative attention. You are under an obligation to edit in a civil, collaborative fashion to improve the encyclopedia. You have not been doing so lately on this matter, and that is a problem that is wasting a lot of people's time. To quote a famous film, your methods are unsound. To date I don't see any effort by you to try to work with the community, only digging in your heels and lashing out. - ] (]) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::By the way, a third list blanked] and a hit list - ] (]) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Removing offending material citing BLP is not page blanking, sigh. It is blp enforcement list in favour of living people. And compiling a list ofpowrn articles that may not be BLP compliant is ¿only a hit lsit to someone with contempt for our BLP policy and the protection it offers to our living subjects, people for you, ], and others have shown scant regard so far. ♫ ] ] ] 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::What makes you think that making stuff up, antagonizing other editors, and disrupting other people's work is actually good for any living people on or off the encyclopedia? I'll go ahead and restore one of the lists that is obviously sourced. Do not resort to edit warring again here. If you have any specific list items that you think are not adequately supported in the articles themselves then feel free to flag that. Otherwise, wait for the RfC to conclude before continuing this campaign. - ] (]) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That lasted all of seven minutes. I won't join Squeak's edit war here, as that would be futile and it would drag me down to that level. Nothing anybody can do or say individually or collectively, and apparently no consensus by the community, can stop Squeak from repeatedly blanking content he doesn't approve of, citing his interpretation of BLP's content and behavioral standards as unimpeachable. I trust it is obvious why this pattern is untenable. - ] (]) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	===Fifth and sixth porn list blanked===
	Here. - and then here, the classic blanking a page then PRODding it. I don't know how many of Misplaced Pages's many thousands of people lists Squeak plans to blank, are they going to stop after working their way up the current hit list of 20? Should we just wait for the RfC to end and then roll them all back if there is no consensus that BLP policy requires this? - ] (]) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
	:The only problematic edit is by wikidemon in which he restores material which has been with a link to the BLP policy in the edit summary. BLP does allow editors who make such additions in violation of BLP to be blocked whereas it does not allow this for editors who remove non compliant BLP material about workers in a contentious industry to be blocked for tyhese removals, indeed it requires these removals prior to discussion. ♫ ] ] ] 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::
	::I rolled back a couple of those lists. {{u|Squeakbox}}, your interpretation of BLP in reference to those lists is ''not'' consensual, so far. When it will be decided that your interpretation is correct, then I'll gladly abide, but so far your arm-twisting is disruptive.--]] 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.
	::Yes, Cyclopia has also violated BLP . A consensus of editors is unable to override BLP, we dont give any[REDACTED] editors such power over the living subjects we write about and the burden of proof is on those such as yourself and wikidemon who choose to knowingly ignore BLP. ♫ ] ] ] 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::
	:*Squeak, the issues you are concerned about are in discussion in multiple places. These articles have been in place for years, running and around and blanking them in a day is not solving anything. Let the RFC run its course. I am concerned IP vandals are likely to come in and insert crap amongst the fighting, and then we'll have an identifiable problem. Your behavior is uncivil.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 17:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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.
	:::(ecX3 - addressed to Squeak)Please review ] before lobbying to have your perceived opponents blocked, also misrepresenting their edit history. Also, it might be instructive to review ]'s spectacular flame-out before deciding to wage war against a major part of the editing community. His excuse that his edit warring wasn't actually edit warring was COPYVIO, also that he wasn't him but rather his bot that was repeatedly reverting. We all know the issues and arguments here. I reserve the right to revert edits you make based on your faulty interpretation of BLP, but as long as you're edit warring like that it is futile, so you're forcing us to waste a lot of time dealing with you. - ] (]) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::
	:::{{ec}}...and now he's blatantly , plus accusing people of BLP violation. SqueakBox, your <u>interpretation</u> of BLP is not consensual. There is no consensus that such lists violate BLP, nowhere so far. ''*sigh*'' I won't revert back, but this is a worrying attitude.--]] 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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?
	::::{{re|SqueakBox}} For what is probably the tenth time: No one is saying we are going to override BLP Policy. There is a good faith question on how to properly interpret the wording. Its not clear how that discussion will be closed, but '''IF''' it determines your interpretation is wrong, it wont be overriding BLP Policy. Your continued insistence to the contrary is unhelpful. ]] 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::
	::::::Reading this thread it seems to me that perhaps a temporary topic ban for SqueakBox on such lists is in order. He is being disruptive, no matter what consensus will decide on the issue. Once the discussion is ended on the topic, this can be lifted. --]] 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it. You would have to find an admin to permanently block me. And why do you want to topic ban me? So you can ignore our BLP policy in a contentious area like porn? The only peopel deserving of blocks are those who knowingly add BLP non compliant material at the expense of the living people we write about, as BLKP explicitly makes clear. You might though try to the arbcom, Cyclopia. ♫ ] ] ] 17:57, 7 August 2014 (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.
	::::::::{{tq|You would have to find an admin to permanently block me.}} - Yup, quite exactly, hopefully. If consensus decides so, of course. You ] that ] is not as consensual as you think, so some action, in my humble opinion, is in order.--]] 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.
	:FWIW, I have restored the list at ]. per ] among other editing principles. I do not intend to edit war over this and will not go past 1RR if reverted (though I may complain) but after considering the issue carefully, and in accordance with my position and that of many other editors that the information is duly sourced in each article on the list, I do not believe this presents a legitimate BLP problem. I believe that removing a long list like this degrades our encyclopedic coverage of the notable cultural phenomenon of Japanese pornography, and risks losing a lot of hard work of editors over time. IF the decision is eventually made to require individual sourcing of each name on a list of people, then the Misplaced Pages community can find a way to make that happen. This list has been around for many years and nobody has sued anybody, and nobody from the outside world has complained. There is no deadline to get things right. So let's get things right and not do anything hasty. Let's see what the community wants to do from here. - ] (]) 07:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			::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 ===
	'''Squeakbox was absolutely correct in blanking the two lists in question here. It is evident that the editors complaining about his edits have generally not bothered to review the material in question and are, at best, rushing to judgment.'''
	*The ] had five entries and no relevant references. Four of the five performers listed were not, in their individual articles, even categorized in any way as bondage models. (The fifth was, but without any supporting content, sourced or unsourced.) Three of the five articles included no text mentioning "bondage"; the stated fourth stated that the performer had appeared in several videos with S&M/bondage themes without describing her actual roles; and the fifth ]esized the bondage model claim from an interview statement that the performer had been tied up in a film and didn't enjoy it. (If we accept that last inference is valid, the most prominent contemporary bondage model is certainly ], and ] a pioneer in the field.) The RS failure for this wretched little list was utterly complete.
	*The list of "Notable AV idols" embedded in ] failed basic standards, not just for BLP but for RS and for lists generally. It was infested with redlinks, which absolutely do not belong in lists of this type. The list claims to identify particularly notable/significant performers in the genre, but neither the article itself nor, for the most part, the linked articles provide any reliably sources attesting to a listed performer's significance/importance. Just to pull some randomly selected examples (one for each decade}:
	**] (1980s): The claim of particular significance is that she is notorious for a scandal involving a foreign head of state. It is sourced only to these two (NSFW) plainly unreliable sources
	**] (1990s): Described in her article as "one of the most popular AV idols in Japan during the early 1990s", but that claim is supported only by a page from a site advertising her videos (NSFW)
	**] (2000s): Primary claim of significance is her placement in various vendor polls ranging from 28th to 62nd, which hardly demonstrates historical significance
	**] (2010s): Claims of significance appear to be that the subject "is well known for her large breasts" and once reached the top 10 in a vendor popularity poll of no established significance
			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)
	*No one has provided any evidence or reasoned analysis that either of these two actions by Squeakbox was inappropriate. The case here amounts to nothing more than judgment by unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) accusation. ] (]) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	**And with that you repeated an action for which SqueekBox is under discussion here for. I've gone ahead and restored the list. There are no red links on the list, but I will review the four items you claim here as a content matter to be lacking in sourcing or relevance. Please feel free to bring up your content concerns there. In the meanwhile, please do not try to force any points about lists generally before the RfC has established consensus if any on what the policy actually says on the subject. - ] (]) 23:07, 9 August 2014 (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.
	====Topic ban for User:Squeakbox====
			: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)
	From all lists of porn actors or articles including such lists, broadly construed, until a consensus is reached either way on the interpretation of BLP in this respect.
			::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)
	*'''Support''' as proposer.--]] 18:08, 7 August 2014 (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)
	*'''Oppose'''. Topic-banning someone for something that a significant proportion of those discussing the matter consider to be compliant with policy isn't the way to resolve anything. ] (]) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (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)
	*'''Support''' except that he should be permitted to add sources to any BLP lists, which is the ''only'' way to truly improve the project. The ban would not be punitive, but to allow us to get something constructive done. Same goes for you, Andy. Squeak is being extremely uncivil, and it is taking every fiber of my being not to go off on a rant like I used to do. No more for me.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 18:26, 7 August 2014 (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)
	*<s>I would only support a much more limited topic ban. As a counter proposal, I would propose a topic ban on removing blue linked list entries unless Squeakbox has checked the linked article, and found no way to verify the inclusion criteria based on the references at the article. The topic ban to remain in force until either the RFC at ] has closed, or a month has gone by without it being closed. ]] 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)</s>
	:*'''Changed to support''' In light of the comment in the section above indicating they wont abide by a topic ban. No point in going out of the way to pass a very narrow topic ban if the editor isn't going to respect it. ]] 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Seems a reasonable way to stop the disruptive and ] actions while a decision is made on the merits of the actions. ] (]) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Abstain''' because I'm too close to this situation, as much as I wish I were not. I suggest any ] editor stand back in favor of people who can look at this with fresh eyes and think this through neutrally and as a behavior rather than policy question. - ] (]) 18:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Though I will note I am involved in this debate. I don't support a topic ban on the grounds of his interpretation of ], but rather his disregard for building consensus through discussion. This whole debate has been conflagrant, and his continuing to remove material based on a policy that is currently being discussed is unhelpful and belligerent. ]] 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' {{ec}} I'm completely uninvolved in this debate, but I've been following it and SqueakBox's behaviour has been entirely unacceptable. I, like Monty, would've said to do a smaller topic ban, but the editor seems to disregard the concept. Further, I don't think the interpretation of ] is the issue, but rather the way he's gone about it. Continuously removing materal mid-discussion is extremely counterproductive.
	:'''Additional note''': I see that this comment is almost exactly the same as that of The Mol Man, but I'm keeping it here anyway. ] ] 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' and support a wider ban from BLP lists in general. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Squeak's complaints about "ignoring BLP policy" are inaccurate. His statement that he won't abide by any topic ban does not speak well of any good faith we are to assume. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Abstain''' - For the same reasons as Wikidemon. I brought up a Topic Ban initially in Talk page discussions, but wanted sufficient conversation to take place first. Not only has that happened, but someone else has proposed the ban. I do '''support''' a broader ban to include everything under the purview of the Porn Project based on Squeaks comments on his ] and the lengthy blog posted off-Wiki --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' ban from BLP lists, at least until RFC is closed. It is very important to note he uses to remove not just BLP links, but also links of deceased people and references that justify the inclusion of the links , actions that could justify an even longer topic ban. ] 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support indef''' block of user. They have already said they will not abide by the communities decision and that they will wilfully ignore an topic bans. In essence they have stated they continue to be disruptive until blocked. ] (]) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - I happen to agree with this user's position and I think that he means well. I think that, for better or for worse, porn is very controversial in our society (it doesn't take too much digging to find articles about teachers getting fired for posing nude decades ago) and it's important to make sure that calling someone with a porn star has good sourcing. However, I disagree with the general tenor of his conduct at this WP:ANI thread. He comes across as very combative and hostile in such a manner that even someone like me who is trying to support his position ends up feeling attacked by him. I think he might need some distance from porn topics to cool down because this debate has become way more fiery and fractious than it really should be, and part of that unfortunately is because of his approach to making his points. ] (]) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' The community hasn't got time for this user's time wasting. ] (]) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This would have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement if editors had to worry that they would get topic banned for zealously enforcing a policy that we want editors to zealously enforce. ] <small>(])</small> 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::This isn't about zealous enforcement at all. Its about being uncivil and a ''detriment'' to article improvement. He running around with an RFC pending claiming that BLP requires things I've never seen in 5 years of editing, even if some of those ideas could have merit. While he ran around talk pages, a few of us have added 200 sources to one list article already.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::There has been plenty of incivility to go around during this debate, which hasn't exactly been a shining example of how this community should behave. I have no patience for incivility, but neither do I see a reason to single out a particular editor for it and ignore other, plentiful examples from the same debates. ] <small>(])</small> 21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Besides Squeak, which other editor on either side of the debate has said he intends to continue deleting stuff no matter what is decided? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' there are a few people here who need to get a grip on reality. It's really easy to let slack lists go and to suggest "well, that list doesn't have any references, so why should any other?", but as Gamaliel suggests, we have a mandate to enforce policies such as BLP. Relying on linked articles etc is nonsense, and topic-banning an editor for trying to improve the situation is patently absurd. I note we have some equally absurd "indef block" calls above. Perhaps some folks here don't even know what they're voting for. ] (]) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::There has to be a limit on what is considered adequate enforcing of BLP according to the spirit of the policy, beyond which the edit warring and refusal to collaborate is considered disruptive. Otherwise, I could go to any B-class BLP article and perform a removal (performed on a copy, not the real article) of every single sentence that doesn't have a direct inline reference within it, and keep edit warring any revert in the name of BLP enforcement way past the 3RR and refusing any request to stop or help fixing the removal. Gutting the article to an unreadable mess that, per policy, could only be fixed by inserting a new reference within every sentence in the article. If I start doing that right now to all BLP articles at ], would you say that I was being disruptive and call me to stop, or will you agree that it's improving BLP coverage? ] (]) 06:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Agree with Gamaliel and TRM. --] (]) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' at this point. But to be frank. Squeakbox is well into ] territory. ]] 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Emphatically support''' Off & on over the last several months Squeakbox has been obsessively attacking all lists of people involved in the sex industry on the pretense of BLP, as shown by examining his last 500-1000 edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive edits related to sex topics in the past -- see of appearances here at WP:AN/I -- & in 2007 ] -- only to return & continue this campaign in the most disruptive manner possible. His actions have only made it ''more difficult'' for impartial Wikipedians to take ] concerns seriously. He isn't concerned about inaccurate information, he is concerned that these people are identified as "porn stars" despite the fact their articles detail careers as such. Based on his actions in this thread alone, I would block him indefinitely because of his lengthy history of disruption, but I will not because of this !vote. -- ] (]) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	** '''Further comment''' SqueakBox's claim of upholding BLP here is misleading, & is obvious if you look closely at the original page he indiscriminately blanked. The list on the page included names of people best known for (uh, well) performing in porn movies: Annie Sprinkles, Harry Reems, James Deen, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Chambers, Ron Jeremy & Traci Lords. No reasonable person would expect a reliable source to affirm these people are pornographic actors any more than they would expect reliable sources to include Charlie Manson & David Berkowitz in a list of mass murders, or a reliable source to include Bernard Madoff in a list of embezzlers. (And being labeled a murderer or embezzler is far more insulting than being called a porn star.) Had SqueakBox simply removed less familiar names from the list on ], one could argue he was acting in good faith to uphold BLP although not acting in the best manner. Instead, he is blanking all content on the pages -- both the self-evident & those arguably in need of a reliable source -- in what appears to be a ] against lists of people working in the sex entertainment business.
	::* '''Comment''' In reference to the above comments, here is the "original" page that SB challenged; and here is the page after SB first blanked it and tagged it for deletion;, then there was some edit-warring, it survived an AfD and the current version is linked in the comment above. Thanks to everyone who chipped in and helped in the rescue and rehabilitation of this article.]] 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::* One thing to note here: after checking, every single name on the list was a legitimate porn star. After hundreds of hours of ridiculous drama, the hypothetical harm to be avoided turns out to be just that, hypothetical. The list, though sourced on the other end of the click instead of the end Squeak demands, turns out to be carefully compiled and sourced, and of no harm to living people. It is pure fantasy that there is some kind of legal or moral emergency on Misplaced Pages that demands this kind of social breaching. Yes, the community got together and spent hundreds of hours answering Squeak's accusation, and perhaps that is an improvement to the list, perhaps not. But it did nothing to advance the cause of BLP as it turns out that there was neither a BLP problem nor a BLP consequence to the list. - ] (]) 08:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' When I see comments announcing that - ''There can be no consensus to stop me...the only way to stop me are to block me...I will not stop...I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either'' - it leads me to believe that they won't be stopped from disruptive editing. We really shouldn't be relying on one editor's opinion in interpretating a policy to justify disruptive behavior.]] 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Unfortunate support''' Squeakbox has been given numerous times and numerous chances by the community regarding this issue, and he has dismissed every single dissenting voice to his specific interpretation of BLP. Blanking lists was bad enough, but that he admits that he will incessantly continue until he is blocked is the very definition of a ] editor. ] (]) 21:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' topic ban based on everything I said . ] 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - This kind of disruptive activity ] ] and enough is enough at this late date. Whether or not "Squeak" will abide by this type of ban, which I should state clearly here should apply to both "porn actors" and actresses as well, is irrelevant at this time. is just going to keep going on & on until something is changed in our BLP policy wording, and that discussion is ongoing now at an RfC. ] (]) 23:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*:Guy, for context, what was the outcome of that earlier event? - ] (]) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::As I already said over at the BLP RfC, "Squeak" was warned about his actions back then when he was blanking content from articles, mostly related to ] awards, and threatening to blank even more content on various talk pages of those same type of articles. He was clearly told in several different venues (including at BLP/N) that his actions were not valid and yet he returned again recently to continue basically right where he had left off before. There's really nothing new in his recent editing behavior or "style" of collaborating with other editors now. Between back then and now, a significant amount of work has been done (by more than a few editors) to improve the content & sourcing in many adult film award articles. ] (]) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (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)
	*'''Oppose''': if it passes and he refuses to cooperate, a block may well be in order, but I don't think a topic ban is really the right answer. The problem here is ''not'' the removal of inadequately sourced lists. If editors didn't keep trying to put the inadequately sourced items back, this conflagration would have stayed small and contained.&mdash;](]) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I'm not involved, though I've worked with SB in the past. It wasn't pleasant, and from the comments above it looks like he hasn't changed much, but unless he moves into being intentionally pesty, and we will all know it when we see it, he shouldn't be stopped from enforcing BLP policy.] (]) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)		::Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you {{tq|absolutely agree with}} isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose'''. Bad idea to sanction users who take a hardline stance on BLP matters. We need them to clean up the articles. ] (]) 06:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::No position on[REDACTED] is immune to sanctions for acting like a horse's ass. As I'm reading the newer comments though, I see some feel he's been this way for many many years, and taking actions harmful to productive BLP work, which is depressing.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::And if you look closely, this is actually not a BLP dispute, it's a ''manual of style'' dispute. The possible exception to this fact is Squeak, who admittedly knows nothing about the subject and also can't be bothered to check the individual entries for potential BLP violations. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I have read it carefully, and contributed to it, as has BB. The discussion at the BLP talk page is quite clearly a discussion about BLP and its application to lists incuding living people. The MOS has been quoted, but the focus of the debate is precisely how BLP should be applied. Saying it is not a BLP dispute is not correct. ] (]) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Saying that it's not a BLP dispute may be a simplificaton; the fact remains that the original dispute is over how to give style and format to the available references, and at no point was there a challenge of the accuracy nor verifiability of the stated facts. ] (]) 08:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::An oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. The discussion at the BLP talk page is about what BLP mandates in terms of requirements for verification by citation of references in various kinds of BLP article, and what actions are required or permissible in the absence of the required level verification. That discussion is not restricted to the case where those assertions are correct and verifiable, nor is it restricted to the case where references are available in some other article. Those possible use cases are part of the discussion but do not form the whole of it. The discussion is about policy, not about the behaviour of one particular editor on one particular article. ] (]) 11:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::What BLP mandates for verification, it does so in order to protect the reputation of those persons. That was not at play at the case being considered here, which *is* about the actions of one user which can't be considered to be furthering the goal of BLP policy. ] (]) 13:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Possibly. My point was that the discussion at the BLP talk page is about the requirements of BLP in a broad range of cases: it is not about matters of style or specific cases as has been stated, in my view incorrectly, here. What is under discussion here is the behaviour of one particular user, on which I make no comment. ] (]) 15:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::The continual pooh-poohing of the very same BLP issue that exists within categories, with the excuse that the rules don't require it, has convinced me that this is a MOS issue, not a BLP issue. The entire ''megillah'' should be moved to the MOS talk page. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::I tend to agree with this much of the comment by BB, that the inability of categories to support ] by citations could well be problematic expecially in the case of BLP, and I certainly don't think I have pooh-poohed it. The fact that categories technically cannot support citations, whereas lists can, means that it makes sense for current policy to require citations in lists. If categorisation leads to a BLP problem, then policy might have to be changed, and if BB would like to propose that, I might well find myself in support. However, there is no point in discussing the matter on the MOS talk page, as the MOS is already clear on the matter. ] (]) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::There's no evidence that there were any BLP issues with the list in question. Squeak is using an alleged MOS rule for the sole purpose of unwarranted deletion, and hence, disruption. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			== Non-neutral paid editor ==
	* '''Support'''. Even if Squeek is correct (and I don't think he is), he's being disruptive. If an RfC determines that his interpretation of ] is correct, my !vote would shift to 1RR per item per list per year, rather than a topic ban. — ] ] 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' per Arthur Rubin. This goes well beyond reasonable upholding of BLP policy into the territory of disruption and belligerence (@]: yes, he '''is''' being intentionally pesty). It was demonstrated that the lists have never failed ], the basic pillar, and it only took two clicks (one to the actor's article and another to a reference there) to verify their status in the adult industry. If that is deemed inadequate in the RfC, then fine, someone should go and properly source it inline, but blanking them in the face of numerous and reasonable opposition and in the midst of discussion is not acceptable. ] (]) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' — SqueakBox is clearly a lightning rod, i.e. "One that attracts and absorbs powerful, typically negative feelings and reactions, thereby diverting interest from other issues". Administrators not taking action in this matter would be condoning and enabling his combative behavior and helping maintain the combative part of the Misplaced Pages editing environment. --] (]) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' topic ban, but favor that administrators keep a close eye on Squeakbox for potential disruption and a fast block if necessary, since this is starting to smack of a personal crusade rather than consensus-based action. ] (]) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' for the duration of the duration of the RFC. Only in the truly exceptional cases (such as certain troublesome users for whom wikipedians have developed reflex triggers for) do we have a single question in so many venues all at the same time. Either SB can contribute to establishing a consensus in now we should handle individuals connected to porn or they can sit on the sidelines (either voluntarily or by force) and not get an opportunity to help. Either way is fine with me as long as the moving battle for this topic stays put at one location and no behind the scenes machinations occur. ] (]) 21:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Pointless Support''' - this is clearly disruptive behavior, and while the user has stated that they would not abide by such a ruling (which is pretty evident in itself), it would be good to attempt to restrain them until a definitive result (or lack of result) is reached. ]'']'' 22:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per AndyTheGrump. --] (]) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	<small>Consensus seems to be forming. How long should this stay open before closing? Honest question.--]] 14:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Oppose'''. There is no consensus that Squeakbox's edits were inappropriate. There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines -- indeed, there is a very strong case that they were compelled by BLP and RS requirements (see my comments above). Enforcing even the simplest BLP requirements with regard to articles involving pornography has been unreasonably controversial for a long time, and there is no legitimate reason to impede it further. As someone who has removed hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists, even such high-profile ones as ], I have previously demonstrated that the scrutiny of such lists for accuracy by the editing community has been wretchedly substandard. Squeakbox's actions may have been imprudent or provocative, but nowhere near as imprudent or damaging as the long-standard tolerance of unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and sometimes fabricated claims in articles on the general subject. ] (]) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::HW, in reference to your edits on "hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists" is it safe to assume that you're talking about and with edit summaries like "another gross BLP violation" and "gross BLP violation, more porn-related blithering idiocy" (respectively) when all that you did was remove a Wikilink?
	::::I don't think it's safe to assume that, but for what it's worth, those were two examples of wikilinks to bios from unrelated people who shared the same name. Requiring a citation would actually make this problem worse, not better, because instead of clicking the link to find the sources and seeing it's the wrong person, someone would just click the source and not realize the link is wrong. It would be a stretch to call that a BLPVIO in any event, because in a million years I do not think that would give the person in question any harm or cause of action. But again, unless H.Wolf said that's what he's referring to it's not fair to make that assumption. - ] (]) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::And speaking of lists, since you've edited ] it would seem that you have '''less''' of a contention about ''bondage models'' than you do porn stars since you haven't raised the same reference issues there. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Re "There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines " — The evidence and analysis was presented on the talk page. You may disagree with it, but it was presented in good faith. At the time of the blankings, there were four editors in favor of restoring the material, while only SqueakBox and another were in favor of deleting. Removing the material wasn't an emergency situation to protect the actors mentioned since this list has been up for years. SqueakBox's actions were needlessly inflammatory. I think it could have been settled without all this disruption. --] (]) 22:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::For sure it is not the job here at AN/I to decide whether the BLP justification for the repeated reversions was correct or not, only to note that there is an ongoing discussion with sincere opinions on both sides. - ] (]) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per the reasonings above. Disruption has to stop - one way or the other. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''support''' due to his clear intention to continue to disregard the accepted interpretation of policy. ''']''' (]) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' People should not be sanctioned for good-faith BLP actions, even if others think their interpretation of policy is wrong. In BLP cases, ]. There is no requirement to obtain consensus before deleting material where there is known to be disagreement over whether it violates BLP; in contrast, there is a requirement to obtain consensus before restoring. Thus is it not Squeakbox who should be under scrutiny, but those who restored material that Squeakbox had deleted without first starting a discussion and obtaining consensus that the deletion had not been required by BLP. ] (]) 00:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::There was a consensus for restoring the ''List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films'' after considering whether it was a BLP violation, a consensus that SqueakBox disregarded and edit warred against. --] (]) 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't think there was a clear consensus. ] (]) 04:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::{{xt|You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it.}} Does not sound like good faith to me. It sounds more like bellicosity. ]] 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' From the discussion above, it is clear there is no consensus either for or against a topic ban. I still can't see why those who are so aghast at SB's blanking just restore the information with an inline reference? SB is royal pain in the ass, no doubt, but BLP policy is clearly on "his side". Just copy and paste the links and be done with it.] (]) 02:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Whose side the policy has yet to be decided. ] contains over a quarter-million bytes that show blatantly there is no agreement as to whether or not his interpretation was correct. Is his interpretation of BLP correct? That's open for debate on the aforementioned talk page. But it is absolutely false to say whose side the policy is on yet, especially "clearly" so. ]] 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::My apologies, I meant to add "IMO" about the policy part. It IS clear however that there is no consensus about a topic ban as someone else suggested above. Further discussion is pointless and unless something changes. Who wants to close the TB proposal?] (]) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::And to drive home the point of why I think this is "clear" is because the manual of style enforces this point. "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as ''verifiability'', no original research, neutral point of view, and what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as the notability guidelines." SB is well within his "rights" (whatever rights we have according to the TOS) to insist that claims made are verifiable. There appears to be genuine disagreement if blue links are valid sources. Many blue linked articles have proved to be inadequately sourced for a variety of reasons. BLP requires strong sources for contentious material. Inline sourcing >>> blue links. Now of course this is boiling down to who is going to do the work. The burden is on those wishing to restore the material removed. Period. There are some who indicate they believe SB is thumbing his nose and doing this for the sheer enjoyment of annoying people. I personally would not ague against this theory. I would open up an arbitration request and ask them to decide if blue linked articles are acceptable as sources for BLP contentious material, but I'm not willing to spend the time putting it together. I'd welcome it if someone else would. Selfish of me I suppose, but I'm too ADDHD to tackle this sort of job. Man has to know his limitations.] (]) 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			@] 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)
	== User abusing PROD ==
			:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
	] is blatantly abusing the PROD system to get articles he doesn't like deleted without discussion. Thankfully most admins have been sensible enough to reject them. He has tagged over 50 articles so far, some of which are correctly tagged, but others clearly meet none of the criteria for deletion per ]. He has tried to get articles on NFL, MLB, and NHL players, a former Chilean national football team manager, and a member of the Indian parliament deleted. These are ridiculous and disruptive edits. He needs to be stopped, warned, and maybe blocked. I've tried to undo some of his edits, adding references and such, but there's too many. ] (]) 12:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Please note offensive language by this editor on my talk page. And remove of legitimate PROD at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nelson_Acosta&diff=619948981&oldid=619936217 ] (]) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)		:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
	:Please note further offensive language at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A124.148.207.219&diff=619950105&oldid=619950053. ] (]) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)		:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
			:* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
	::Does the word "filth" offend you? I'm terribly sorry, and I cheerfully withdraw it. Less offensive synonyms are available on request. ] (]) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			:* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
	:::Some of the articles I Prod'd might be incorrect, but I'd suggest the vast majority are Biographies of Living People with no references. That is a legitimate reason to Prod them. If you can find references, feel free to improve the articles with them. ] (]) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (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)
	Seems legit to me. All the ones I've looked at were BLPs without references. ] ]] 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:No that is not a legitimate reason to prod them. "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (from ]) does not mean any article without a source can be deleted at any one time – this user makes no effort to find sources, just tries to delete article. What worthless contributions – detracting from the total sum of knowledge and giving nothing back. Sources listed under external links are still references. ] (]) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them.
	::Please see ]. ] ]] 13:07, 5 August 2014 (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.
	:::No admin action seems to be required here. My only advice would be for {{U|AlanS}} to use the {{tl|Blpprod}} template instead of {{tl|Prod}} when tagging such articles. --]]<small>]</small> 13:39, 5 August 2014 (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.
	::Any BLP create after March 18, 2010 that does not contain any sources can be tagged with {{tl|blpprod}}. These prod tags cannot be removed unless the one contesting the deletion provides at least one reliable source. (see ]) —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (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.
	:::I disagree with the report, {{U|AlanS}} is doing good job and he don't have to write tags because he can select PROD type from page patrolling tools. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			::# 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.
	::::No, he absolutely '''does''' need to provide good reasons for a PROD. "select PROD type from page patrolling tools" without a proper investigation and rationale is not acceptable, as explained below by {{U|Calathan}}, with regards to older BLPs, as just one example. I remember your name, {{U|OccultZone |OZ}}, from an earlier discussion about automated tools. Users are entirely, and personally, responsible for the quality of edits they make with such tools in exactly the same way as if they had not used a tool at all. The details page for any reputable tool will tell you exactly that. The tool may '''never''' become a substitute for thought and care. If the edits are in any way below the standard which a manual edit, with thought, would have been, then the tool is being used inappropriately, and such use must be discontinued. I truly shudder to contemplate the number of potential editors we scare off daily by use of these tools as though this was some shoot-em-up video game, where quantity of edits is more important than quality. I'd put that as Misplaced Pages's number one problem, right now. Really. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I'll take the opinion of the only admin to have commented on this thread so far. ] (]) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)		::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)
	::::::You are, of course, free to pick and choose whichever advice you wish. However, even a quick glance at ] seems to indicate that there have been multiple occasions on which experienced editors have had concerns about the deletion related edits you have made. Of course, they could all be wrong. As {{U|Calathan}} says below, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, as are those who have expressed some concerns, or advised a little more care. I'd just ask you to consider that. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 04:03, 7 August 2014 (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.
	:::::::It's not so much about picking and choosing advice. I always am wary of cherry picking. More so the case of an admin saying that what I am doing seems legit to him. Sorry I'm going to take the words of admin with a bit more weight than I would any one else. You are quite right about others previously expressing concern at my haste in slapping CSDs around. I've tried to take quite a bit more care with them. As far as I'm aware though with prods, it's quite legitimate to place one an article with no references (especially given that anyone can remove it if they disagree). ] (]) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::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)
	::::::::That's great. All any of us can do is try to improve, and hope we get it right. Below this post, 2 other editors disagree that all of your BLP prods were unproblematic, and they give a reasonable explanation of why they think that might be so. Sure, another editor can remove an erroneous PROD, or even one they just disagree with, but really, why should they need to, and why should we run the risk of unnecessarily upsetting editors, or even article subjects, by tagging articles in this way? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 08:42, 7 August 2014 (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/
	I commented about a similar situation to another user yesterday, and wanted to give a similar comment here. The BLPPROD policy was brought about as the result of a long and contentious discussion, as a compromise where recent BLPs would be deleted just for being unsourced and older BLPs would not be deleted just for being unsourced. For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced (as again, one of the key parts of the compromise was that older BLPs would not be deleted just because they were unsourced). AlanS, I see that you have tagged some older BLPs with PROD tags with a deletion rationale that only states they are unsourced (e.g. ] and ]). While I think you are acting in good faith, and disagree with most of what 124.148.207.219 said, I do agree that this isn't a valid reason for deletion for those articles. Please just put a little more into the deletion rationale, such as a statement that you did a quick search for sources and didn't find any, or that you think the subject is non-notable (if you think they ''are'' notable, it would obviously be much more helpful to add references rather than tagging them for deletion). ] (]) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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)
	:AlanS has ignored what I wrote here, and is continuing to tag older BLPs with prod tags that only say they are unreferenced. I consider that disruptive, as the prod reason isn't a sufficient reason for deletion for those articles. AlanS, remember that the idea is to build an encyclopedia that includes articles on notable subjects and excludes articles on non-notable subjects. Spending less than 5 minutes looking for sources on an article will often allow you to tell whether the subject is notable or not, and is much more helpful than just tagging lots of articles without even looking for sources. If you do even a cursory search for sources and don't find any that look sufficient, then that is a valid reason to PROD an article. I'm not asking you to stop cleaning up those unsourced articles, and indeed cleaning them up is quite helpful. However, please just go about it in the right way, by giving valid reasons for deletion when you tag them and by checking first if any of them are subjects we should have articles on. ] (]) 14:52, 6 August 2014 (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)
	::The two examples given by ] two comments up both have external links in the article - which makes them ineligible for BLPprod even if they had been created post-2010. ] (]) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (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)
	:::I have removed the BLPprod from the one which had external links that were working and removed the link from the other one that was broken. ] (]) 11:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			*:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}?
	::::For the record, AlanS placed PROD on ], an article created in 2003, with the rationale "Article contains no references" while it still had an external link (). ] (]) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (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.) 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)
	:::::Do you enjoy nitpicking? ] (]) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (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)
	::::::And again, is for an article created in 2009. Clearly there ''is'' a persistent problem here. I suggest the following:
			::::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.
	:::::::What exactly is the problem with that PROD. The Article is completely un-referenced. ] (]) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::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)
	::::::* Firstly, ] should stop marking articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place.
			:::::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)
	::::::* Secondly, he should use the appropriate template - in other words {{tl|Prod blp}} instead of {{t1|Proposed deletion}} for BLPs without references.
			::::::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.
	::::::* Thirdly and most importantly, he should acknowledge that (to repeat ]'s words verbatim) "For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced.", check the history of the articles he is marking for deletion before he tags them to see when they were created, and stop tagging articles that don't meet the BLPPROD criteria with immediate effect.
			::::::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.
	::::::* Fourthly, he should endeavour to search for appropriate references where none exist before even considering marking an article for deletion
			::::::Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::* Finally, failure to abide by the "Thirdly" paragraph going forward should result in a ban on marking articles for deletion for six months. ]] 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::*{{ping|Number 57}}, I hear what ] is saying. Do other admins agree? ] (]) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::: To answer your query above, ], the problem is that the article you prodded was created before March 18, 2010 and therefore does not qualify for BLPPROD. That's been explained so many times in this thread now I'm beginning to think this is a ] situation. ]] 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::To some extent, I am beginning to think there is a problem here. BLP prods for post-2010 articles are reasonable (although if you can see the subject is clearly notable, why not just find a reference yourself - Google is very quick!), but prodding pre-2010 should only be used if the subject is not notable – tagging many articles of subjects that are clearly notable (e.g. sportspeople that have represented their country) for deletion for no other reason than a lack of references is not particularly productive. I think there are also issues with returning to tag now-referenced articles with {{tl|ref improve}} when in some cases one or two references is perfectly adequate (e.g. tagging the two-sentence ] twice, even though it had a reference that covered pretty much everything in the article). ] ]] 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'll take what you've said onboard. ] (]) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (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)
	===Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol===
			*:@] - 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)
	* This is far from the first discussion I've had involving AlanS and deletion-related disputes. I think plain talking isn't obviously working, so unfortunately I'm going to throw open a proposal that '''AlanS is topic banned from all NPP activities, broadly construed, for three months'''. The evidence can be found in numerous discussions links off ], particularly the notifications of declined speedies, plus comments such as "" and "Do you enjoy nitpicking?" as seen above are just not helpful when dealing with new editors and articles. He's not the only one to blame in the dispute that kicked this thread off, but with a bit more tact and diplomacy, the thread might not have been created in the first place. Your thoughts, please. ] ] ] 14:39, 7 August 2014 (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)
	* Something in the area of responsiveness to guidance, and willingness to exercise required care needs to change. I agree that there have been some very unhelpul responses, so far, and I share deeply the concern for new articles and editors, as I expressed in the discussion above. I'm reluctant to support a topic ban unless AlanS continues to reject guidance and exercise care, now that it is being put to them more plainly. So, I guess that's a "no, unless no alternative remains by the end of this discussion", at this point. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 14:49, 7 August 2014 (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)
	:*Disagree completely given my massive improvement in CSD's. I feel, by and large, I've been using PRODs appropriately. ] (]) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (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)
	::*Since your acknowledgement of Waggers' comment above (approximately fifteen minutes ago), you PRODed several pre-2010 articles with the rationale that they had no references. ] (]) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (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)
	:::*Oof - that doesn't help my reluctance to support the topic ban one bit. That, and the dismissive responses to guidance are starting to make me nervous, I confess. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 15:13, 7 August 2014 (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)
	::::*I have to say that on a ]-winning actress appearing in several major films is ... unhelpful. ] ] ] 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::*...yeah... I think, at the very least, AlanS is going to need to remove his fingers from his ears and acknowledge all the valid concerns. Absent that happening during this discussion, I'll need to support your topic ban, I'm afraid. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - adding a properly formatted !vote, in case my opinion is not clear, above and below. The ] is, unfortunately, deafening still, 3 days later. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 20:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - AlanS doesn't seem to be conscious or aware of the issues and has made ], and they are ineligible, but it continued in this very thread after AlanS responded to it. I also see basic issues with the Notability tag - which should never have been applied to Anne Brochet in the first place. Combined with the attitude, the user is simply not able to be trusted with New Page Patrol if any new editor (or even an experienced one) has to deal with someone who doesn't understand the basic guidelines themselves. ] (]) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - I contest that the majority of the Prods I've applied have been legitimate. Further, if anyone has a look at the page of unreferenced BLPs, they will see that it is pretty much halved in the last 72 hours (for persons with surnames starting with A or B). As per applying a notability tag incorrectly to '''one''' article. My mistake, I'll cop to it and take more care. Further I’ve taken {{user|Number 57}} comments on-board. ] (]) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support and support banning of Prod''' - Recently encountered this editor when he placed a notability tag on the article of ] winning actress ]. Wow. I didn't know this was the tip of the iceberg as indicated here. The mentioned article even stated in the version of this dif that she was an Ceasar Award winning actress who has starred in many films including the iconic '']''. This blatant disregard to ] occurred days after this thread began - It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior. --] (]) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::It's as if you're ignoring ] in saying 'he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules'. ] (]) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::The full sentence is "It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules ''and editors who have a concern of his behavior.''" Trying to AGF but you're not making it easy.--] (]) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose, but..''' - TL;DR: seems hasty, why not try other things first? Long version Mass deletion proposals or any mass invocation of process is a problem if it's not done in an orderly, competent way, and we do have a quality issue here. New page patrol is a partial exception because AFAIK the majority of new pages aren't worthy, and particularly new bios that tend to be unsourced or non-notable. Even that has to be done carefully, politely, helpfully, and with compassion because this is many users' first and only experience trying to edit Misplaced Pages, and we don't want to turn away the occasional good new editor, or alienate the public. So a soft careful touch is useful even when making high-volume templated edits. A topic ban is a rather extreme remedy, not the first thing to try. AlanS seems to be a good faith, sincere editor. Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation. If AlanS will agree to slow down a bit, learn some more, perhaps work with mentorship of a more experienced editor, or just try a little harder, is there any indication that he's not going to do this work just fine? All I see is a 3 day old report where he's trying to be helpful and explain, and not quite hitting the mark. 3 days is too hasty to topic ban someone for 3 months. If there's an immediate present problem, a warning or (very short) block might be more appropriate if it's extreme. Otherwise, just step back and let's get back to normal business here. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I"m here on this page watching other business and abstaining from another topic ban !vote, I just thought I'd be useful by offering my $0.02 on a dispute where I'm completely uninvolved. - ] (]) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: I am always trying to learn. I will admit that I do make mistakes sometimes and I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down and by no means do I want to be putting new editors off or alienating the public. I do apologise if it has seemed like I have pushed back a bit. I do find the tone of this discussion has been a bit off putting. In particular the tone of IP editor who started it (please compare their edit history to a conversation that occurred in ] at and tell me there isn't some wikistalking and violations of ] occurring). ] (]) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: Sorry, but I don't think your comment doesn't really apply because AlanS was picking BLPs from before the policy change in 2010 and was PRODing them. Not only that, its that quite a few were also ineligible because they had external links. Not only that, the problem continued during this thread. Not only that, AlanS was being rude in response to the legitimate issue be called out. Then, the final straw for me was even after all that - managing to do it all again and slap tags that were ineligible without so much as checking the claims already present in the article. This is also not the first time issues have happened - all those comments apply to ''new'' issues. The "Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation." - shows that this very thread itself hasn't curbed the issue since its beginning and the issues predate it. My core issue is that AlanS doesn't understand the policies well-enough to do New Page Patrol and its a ] issue as well. I'd be open to mentoring however, I just don't want to see this return in a month's time to ANI. ] (]) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the comments. I hear you, but the key word for me in your explanation is "was" —&nbsp;if this is in the past, remedies are to prevent *future* disruption, not to punish or deter. If AlanS is committed to trying, why not give him the chance? He's promising to be more careful here. I haven't noticed the civility problem but if there is one you can ask him to stay civil. Accusations of wikistalking are a tough one, because if they're true they aren't uncivil. If they aren't true, sometimes it's just a question of perspective. If you see someone doing something surprising or wrong it's reasonable to look at their edit history to see where else they may have done it and perhaps take action or piece together the bigger picture. But if you're on the receiving end of that it can seem like someone has it out for you. If it does end up back here in a month, fine. You would have the record of this report, and an actual promise AlanS said he would keep but didn't. Strike two, you know. Regarding the pre-2010 BLPs, that's kind of surprising. I was part of the big free-for-all argument that ended up in that agreement to start the BLP rescue project (mostly arguing, not tagging or defending more than a few BLPs). I thought we had gone through them all. If there's still a pre-2010 BLP that looks like it's missing sources, then either someone made a mistake and passed it over without rescuing it, someone removed an earlier source, or the person doing the PROD is missing something. In theory there should be no virgin source-free pre-2010 BLPs here anymore. And in theory there shouldn't be any new ones either, any post 2010 BLPs should be deleted or sourced as soon as they appear. I do think that a single external link or improperly formatted, or tangential reliable source, isn't really keeping with the letter or spirit of BLP, it's just barely enough to survive BLPPROD. After four years now we ought to be trying to add some real sources to these articles, not the bare minimum. But that's not really an issue for this page. - ] (]) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::My accusations are backed up by solid evidence. Please have a look at the two links I have provided and compare the names of the pages the IP has recently edited to his comment on the discussion page of ]. No excuse for me previously being a bit bull headed, but off putting all the same. ] (]) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry to be a little lazy but I'll take you at your word without necessarily endorsing or agreeing. I've definitely been wiki-stalked, and also accused of wiki-stalking. I've seen everything here. People throw a lot of mud on AN/I and in any dispute, and no matter how clean you are when you come in, when mud gets thrown everybody gets dirty. You will rarely come out ahead on AN/I by insisting, however sincerely and correctly, that the person who is accusing you of something is completely wrong and made it up. And if you accuse someone of something on AN/I, however sincerely and correctly, you can expect to be accused yourself of the same thing and for some percentage of the participants to believe that you're the instigator and culprit. This is true in real life, by the way. The best solution I think is to rise above that and just do your best job as an editor. So what if you have an IP wiki-stalker, probably one of the named editors around here who is deliberately not signing in? Sure, there are certain admins with tools who could figure that out. Sure, IPs participating in process discussions are very suspicious (though there is sometimes a legit reason). But so what? You've been wiki-stalked. Welcome to the club. Let them stalk your edits. If you make good edits, own up to your mistakes, treat even your detractors with some respect and kindness, you just have observers, not stalkers. Sometimes that means you have to give up on an edit you know is right, or let someone get away with doing something they shouldn't, for a greater goal of having a good Misplaced Pages experience. Hope that helps! - ] (]) 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - having a look at the PRODs listed at ], there have been ] (ignoring BLPprods) placed on biographical articles in the month of August. Of these 37 were placed with the rationale "Article has no references", one with "Article does not have any references", 35 with "Article contains no references" and one with no rationale. All of the 74 were created before the 18 March 2010 BLPprod cutoff date. None of the rationales are valid ] making 100% of the PRODs invalid. ] (]) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose NPP ban, support PROD ban''' I think a complete topic ban is unnecessary, but Alans does need to stop prodding articles that don't meet the necessary criteria. His responses above and continued editing suggests he either doesn't get it or doesn't care, so sadly I think some kind of sanction is necessary, and banning him from prodding articles seems appropriate. There's no reason (at present) to stop him adding maintenance tags or taking things to AfD/CSD as appropriate. ]] 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' <s>Oppose and counter-proposal</s> - <s>Let's try to channel AlanS' enthusiasm into making him a valuable contributor in NPP '''where we desperately need more reviewers'''. When I started reviewing, I made a lot of mistakes. Fortunately people were very patient with me, and I took their advice and improved. A way forward for AlanS may be some sort of mentoring. If he doesn't demonstrate improvement, or if he ignores advice or continues making the same judgement errors, then a NPP/CSD/PROD ban should be seriously considered.</s>- ]] 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Considering the the poor judgement demonstrated by continuing to make questionable deletion nominations during this discussion, the attitude, and the evident lack of competence in this area, I now support a temporary NPP ban to include nominating any page for PROD or XfD.- ]] 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::<s>Could be a good idea.</s> Personally, I've been periodically checking this thread, hoping to see a response from Alan to {{U|Hack}}'s comment above, outlining which of those PRODS have been fixed by others, which ones he has dealt with himself, which ones may still be problematic, etc... That would be enthusiasm, and a beginning to the learning process you envisage. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::When others have named specific pages by name where I have made a mistake I've usually gone back to the page to see if someone one else might of corrected my mistake or to see if the correction still needs to be done. Sorry if I haven't indicated that when people have brought up specific examples. ] (]) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{U|Hack}}'s message is specific. It refers to a longish list, but it's a specific list. Did you have some other way in mind, rather than running through the list, to check for outstanding issues? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Every article I Prod'd is sitting in my watch list. When they had sources added I removed them from my watch list. There's not much left in my watch list at the moment from those articles that I Prod'd. I'll have a look through the ones that are remaining now. ] (]) 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::From what I can see there is only about 10 of them left (could be missing one or two) and they are BLP Prod variety and those articles are still un-referenced. ] (]) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' for now. I think mentoring sounds like a good alternative. If AlanS rejects mentorship and shows no improvement, then we can come back. Sorry to potentially extend this drama, but I'm not completely convinced at this time that the disruption warrants a ban. I strongly advise AlanS to take a mentor; otherwise, it's likely that he will return here shortly. If we're back here in less than a month, I'll accept a ] and change my vote. ] (]) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Who do you propose and what does it involve? ] (]) 03:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Anyone can remove a prod. A prod is nothing more than a suggestion that deletion is uncontroversial, anyone can dispute that and remove it. Having a ] is not the same as consensus for deletion and is open to personal interpretation. I strongly advise {{u|AlanS}} to use specific prod templates for BLP and such and also provide detailed reasons for each and every article he prods.<p>"'''Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline'''" is a valid reason for deletion and thus prod too, even if the article is prior than 2010 or not a blp. The notability policy does not simply require that a person or subject be notable but that this be demonstrated. The burden of meeting this policy is on the person seeking to include it not the person trying to remove it.<p>I find those suggesting that he should fix the articles instead of removing content contrary to policy to be missing that fundamental point.<p>Frankly I think it is time people learn that unreferenced articles are not long for this encyclopedia. It is a simple standard that if met improves our credibility from a joke to a respectable source of information. I would rather be involved with a referenced encyclopedia 500 times larger than the next largest encyclopedia than an unreferenced one 5000 times larger. ] 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I think I'll just take a break from NPP for a little while. I thought I was actually doing something useful by helping reduce the number of un-referenced BLPs (with surnames starting with A and B) from in excess of a page at to half a page. Others seem to disagree. Fine. I'm sure there are plenty more people who are prepared to go entirely through all un-referenced BLPs. ] (]) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' - I'm responding to AlanS's that ''I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down''. Only a few hours ago he resumed edit-warring over his pet article at ] while a BRD-flagged discussion was in place. It's night in Australia and when I paused for sleep, he said (in ), ''Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD.'' I think this editor should accept his own advice and slow down. In this global project, not every editor is simultaneously awake, let alone on-line. There's always time for discussion, and very few of our encyclopaedic articles need to be up to the minute. Least of all the sort of articles AlanS is PRODding. --] (]) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::What you trying to game ] to have material that you simply don't like not included in a page has to do with Prod'ing I fail to comprehend. Or is this a case of you having a go just because you can? ] (]) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::No. My comment is aimed at your over-hastiness. If an article is unreferenced, we can just put a "cite required" tag on it and wait a while. It doesn't have to be gone immediately because you don't like it. If a discussion pauses, it might be because real life intrudes. We, as individuals, have opinions and agendas. Getting more eyes and more opinions on a problem is always good, even if it means waiting more than a few minutes for a result. --] (]) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - On viewing AlanS's recent behaviour, I'm disturbed at the amount of damage he is causing. A lot of the articles he wants removed represent a significant investment in editing effort. Just because one editor has no interest or knowledge of a topic doesn't mean that articles in that area are deletion targets. He bios of ] players, such as ] of the Detroit Tigers, a man with his own Topps card. Geez. --] (]) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Prior to my tagging that article it was un-referenced. Now it referenced. Surprising how that happened don't you think? ] (]) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::You didn't just "tag" that article but you prodded it for deletion. ]. As per ]:"''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page''." If you had no interest in following ] and looking for sources to improve the article, then place a references tag on it. That you fail to understand this basic tenant of our deletion policy, even during your ANI, is very disturbing. --] (]) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The article also had a link to baseball-reference.com, meaning it wasn't unreferenced. ] (]) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Hasn't this discussion gone on for long enough. I see no consensus for anything. ] (]) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I asked for someone to close it here: . Hope that will help. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - Comments such as the ones that he made above show that he doesn't understand the concept of deleting articles without discussion. If he can't grasp the easy basics of a BLP PROD, perhaps he should be forced to take a break and take the time given to review the deletion policy. Given the fact that numerous editors here have pointed out issue after issue and he's come back with nothing but spite for them, I don't think that anything other than a ban will stop the disruption. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support this, and recommend extension to speedy deletion process as well'''. Editor just tagged for ''speedy'' deletion an academic at a major American university. who received a notable award in her field and holds an endowed chair. That's about as bad a call as you can make. and shows a complete lack of ]. ] (]) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Update''' - Despite the ANI and repeated explanation of deletion and PRODding policies, this editor just speedy prodded ] winner and ] Presidential Chair ] with the rationale "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." This is days ''after'' sympathetic comments like those of ] above with the plea that AlanS stop prodding articles that don't meet the deletion criteria. This has become a colossal case of ]. I now agree with the ] in '''banning from speedy deletion process''' --] (]) 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support the extended ban''' Every time an article is incorrectly listed for deletion we risk not only losing the article, but the editor. NPP is difficult enough to keep current, without also having to undo the problems of those who do it improperly. We need more good people there, but everyone who won't or can't learn how to do it is doing active harm to the project. The continuing use of the rationale, "but it got fixed" shows that this misunderstanding of basic deletion policy is still present. If the discussions above haven't succeeding in explaining it, nothing will. ''']''' (]) 00:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. As it happens I just warned AlanS about unwarranted CSD nomination--and now that I glance upward I see that that's probably what Hullabaloo was talking about. No, this is not good. ] (]) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' In Alan's defense, PROD wasn't completely wrong. However upon checking the content of the article I found it to be a copyvio, so I removed his PROD and applied CSD#G12 accordingly. PROD also turned out to be a copyvio, so again I removed his PROD tag and applied CSD#G12. PROD (IMO) wasn't completely faulty as apparently he didn't know that the article was really under ]. I propose that AlanS stay away from NPP for at least 3-6 months and thoroughly read and understand ], ], ], ], and '''especially''' ], since a lot of the PRODS that I saw were of soccer players. ] ] </span>) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' 3-month ban per speedy nom of Sandra Graham during this discussion.--] 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== ] - request for sanctions ==		=== ] 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 ] 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.
	{{archive top|result=There is clearly no consensus for any sanctions on Ryulong at this time. ] 12:59, 10 August 2014 (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.
	{{u|Ryulong}} has a history of edit warring, with an extensive which has featured eight blocks within the past 12 months. The most recent of these was on 25 July for disruptive editing, and the last block specifically for edit warring was on 18 July 2014, for a period of 48 hours
			:I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
			:P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
			:::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
			::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though.
			::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ]&thinsp;] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
			:::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
			:::
			:::
			:::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result.
			::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
			::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
			::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
			::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway.
			::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
			::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
			:::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among .
			:::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the .
			:::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ]&thinsp;] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
			::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Blocks have varied in length between 24 hours and 2 weeks, the longest relating to an edit war with one editor which stretched to 90 reverts across several articles (for which I was the blocking administrator).
			*: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)
	I and several other editors (some administrators) have worked tirelessly to try and persuade Ryulong to stop edit warring, but this doesn't appear to be working. I believe it is now necessary to place Ryulong under a group of editing restrictions, following his most recent edit warring episode, on 4-5 August at ] .
			*:@] 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? ===
	I propose the following
			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)
	* A blanket 1RR restriction - that is, to prevent Ryulong from making more than 1 revert ''per page'' in a 24 hour period - this restriction would apply across all namespaces, with the exception of his own <s>talk page</s> user space (user page, talk page, drafts under his user space etc).
			::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)
	* An interaction ban between himself and Lucia Black.
			: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)
	* Article probation - Ryulong may be banned from any page if any individual administrator thinks that he is causing disruption. This restriction would also apply across all namespaces.
			::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 ===
	Feedback, comments, requests for supplementary diffs/evidence are welcome, as ever. ] (]) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Looking at the incident in question, I would say the problem was Lucia Black failing to respect BRD. Ryulong was perfectly entitled to revert her changes if they did not have consensus. ] ]] 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Without commenting on the respective merits of the proposed sanctions, the "1RR" one should be subject to ], including at least his entire userspace and not just his talk page. It should also clarify whether it is "1 revert per 24 hours per page" or 1 revert across the entire project. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Please give this careful consideration before acting. Ryulong works in an area of the project that is extensively vandalized. In fact, I believe one of the blocks mentioned by Nick for edit warring was overturned because he was reverting vandalism. He's constantly removing POV, badly sourced or non sourced material, and a lot of just plain silliness. Is he prickly doing it? Yes, but I think that it's only natural given the amount of grief he deals with in keeping the areas he patrols up to wikistandards. If these sanctions are (unwisely) enacted then you had better line up someone to take his place or you will very quickly see degradation in those areas. Here's a counter idea, just simply ask that he tone it down some. ] (]) 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			<s>Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. {{Noping|EMsmile}} is a paid editor who violated ] - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight ''are highly disruptive'' - and that's notwithstanding the ''paid editing.'' Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. </s> Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* The block you're thinking about was overturned so he could deal with some sockpuppetry issues, but that wasn't why he was blocked. Very little of the trouble Ryulong gets himself into and has been blocked for is related to dealing with removal of POV, bad sources or unsourced material. Today, for example, sees Ryulong edit warring with an established editor over their preferred layout for an article. Do you know how often I and other administrators have told Ryulong to tone it down some ? If there was the faintest chance left I thought that would work, I wouldn't be here, looking for an alternative to blocking Ryulong again and again and again, until it's an indefinite block and everybody is sick to the back teeth of his behaviour. ] (]) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			:'''<s>Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions</s>, warning ITK for ].'''- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.
	*'''Oppose''', I'm reluctant to see 'any' colleague of mine have ''restrictions'' placed on themselves, even if it might be in their best interests. AFAIK, Ryulong doesn't vandalize articles & so shouldn't be restricted. ] (]) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			:the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support All''' - That block log says it all. He's one of a handful of editors that do great work, but need to stop bothering the community with their inability or unwillingness to get along with others or play nice. ] ] 17:28, 5 August 2014 (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)
	*'''Comment'''. How on earth is that content-forking spat still going? I thought it'd been settled 18 months ago. --] <small>]</small> 17:32, 5 August 2014 (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).
	*Wow, I take a long wikibreak and things change. Ryulong was an admin back when I was a new admin and he was a good one. I am very surprised by his block log. Sadly I '''support 1RR'''(with usual exemptions, specifically talk page ones) but '''oppose interaction or topic ban'''. It seems both problems the iban or tban would solve are obviated by 1RR. ] 17:35, 5 August 2014 (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 last two blocks were both reversed. So, are there ongoing problems? ] (]) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (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)
	::At least one of those unblocks was no indication that he was not edit warring. There was a ridiculous edit war over a section heading on an article talk page that resulted in Ryulong and another person being blocked. It was an ongoing problem and very recent. The block was 100% correct. The unblocking admin did not discuss the block with the blocking admin and the reasons given for the unblock were confused and dubious at best. ] 18:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
	*'''Oppose''' any community sanctions on Ryulong. It is true that Ryulong is the subject of too many quarrels that are brought to these boards. That is largely because Ryulong edits in areas where there are too many quarrels about the encyclopedia. It would be deeply unfortunate if the “community” were to sanction Ryulong for involvement in contentious areas of editing, where Ryulong is usually on the side of neutrality, the removal of POV, and the improvement of the encyclopedia, without sanctioning the other editors (some of them vandals and sockpuppets). That would reward editors who are ]. Also, for an editor whose positive and negative history goes back as far as Ryulong’s does, the noticeboards do not fully consider his contributions for better and worse. They will only decide whether the pro-Ryulong entourage or the anti-Ryulong entourage is noisier. Instead, any issues about Ryulong’s long-term editorial behavior deserve a full evidentiary hearing. '''Send to ArbCom'''. ArbCom, with all of its limitations and delays, is a more judicial and judicious forum than these noticeboards, and an inquiry into Ryulong (and his critics) should be judicious. ] (]) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
	*'''Oppose''' per the reasonings provided by GoodDay and Robert McClenon. ] (] - ]) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	*'''Oppose''' at this time. If there's a complex, long-term problem a RfC/U should be the next step. ANI is really not the place to hash out things this complex. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment to those recommending RFC/U-ArbCom''' - Please make sure you are aware of the ] which led to the ] which led to desysopping. These are quite old and renewed inquiry may be warranted, but I think it is important to keep the existing history in mind. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 19:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	**A RfC/U from seven years ago is informative but not dispositive. Same for the ancient ArbCom case. This is a matter so complex and involved that it cannot be dealt with in the summary manner that ANI dispute resolution works. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	I don't see why me trying to say that the status quo of an article where someone else made a bold change and I'm not the only one who disagrees with he change (another editor appeared on the talk page who agrees, I think) means I should be subject to anything. Nick has had it out for me for a while, at least whenever I've gone to IRC requesting some sort of help for something. And I'm not doing another god damn arbitration case. I don't want to sit through months of character assassination, again.—] (]) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (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.
	: {{u|Ryulong}} - I'm interested to know why you think I've had it in for you for a while ? I wonder if it correlates to your decreasing standards of behaviour and self restraint ? You worked largely trouble free (and certainly block free) for several years, then you got into the biggest edit war I've seen in 9 years, where there were a hundred reverts across several articles, where you and the other editor broke 9RR more than once. It's been downhill every month since, eight blocks since December, with you edit warring across numerous articles, blanket reverting good faith edits because reverting them with a correct edit summary was too much trouble, being disruptive across various articles and talk pages (GITS is a perfect example of this) and generally becoming increasingly hostile and combative. I don't particularly want to request Arbitration, I really want you to revert to how you were last year or the year before, giving little or no cause for concern. If you don't want to do that, I will, as suggested above, file an Arbitration case, but it's nothing like my preferred option. ] (]) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (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).
	::in the case you're referring to, wasn't the other party ultimately banned for their behavior that I initially was reverting? Or was that someone else? Because I'm fairly certain you're referring to where I was reverting an editor whose name I can't remember right now who was making hundreds of crap "X in fiction" or "fictional Y" articles after being told to stop multiple times and who I had brought to ANI to get a wider view. But I digress. It is true that I've been involved in way too many petty arguments but as noted by Number 57 above, it is almost always a case of people not respecting BRD. I will do my best to work on curbing my behavior further. I just don't want to end up punished, as usual, for trying to respect BRD and coming across others who refuse.—] (]) 23:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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.
	::Oh I was confusing the category guy with the person who added all the financial and academic results to the NCAA pages. IIRC, there was a consensus supporting my edits prior to having discovered that mess. But in retrospect it was wrong for me to have gotten so involved.—] (]) 23:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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?
	*'''Oppose''' If anyone has evidence of Ryulong damaging articles or driving away useful editors, please start a new section without all the baggage about the past. Does anyone have a proposal that would help these articles withstand enthusiasts? ] (]) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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.
	*'''Oppose''' - Johnuniq sums things up perfectly. Ya know I these things make me miss WQA - yes it only occasionally solved anything but there are way too many threads opened here because editors refuse to go the RFC/U route that they should be taking. ]&#124;] 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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)
	*'''Comment''' In this particular circumstance, the BRD isn't the only issue. Ryulong believes he can revert other edits and make edits related to the article after and not question them himself. So there is definitely ] tendencies because even though he uses the claim of "status quo", he wont apply it to himself. In the past, i would abide BRD rule with Ryulong, so long as we had a discussion and attempt to reach consensus. However, Ryulong would not continue the discussion any further as shown ] and ]. So as you can see, Ryulong is quick to dropping discussions, but still wants his "''status quo''" to be kept.
			::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 ===
	:In this most recent situation the dispute is formatting, but for the right reasons? It looks like Ryulong is quick to change his decision when it comes to the formatting simply because he wanted to keep one subtle differences (that the original video game spin-off of the manga get its own section). In these rendition: and You can see that Ryulong supported the idea that not all media is relevant and deserve their own section, and he has moved the video games based on ] onto the more relevant section, while keeping the original video game apart. Unknowing that the original video game is just as much a spin-off belong to the manga, as the SAC video game spin-offs to the original SAC media. So now as the discussion is going , Ryulong is now slowly but surely trying to go back to the rendition he originally was against . And this only began because he wanted the original video game have its own section, not because this is the best way to organize the article. Even further points, he was using this situation to prove to merge the manga back .
			<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)
	:I'm not here to gain consensus (here in the ANI), but i am here to show that there is a more subtler destructive behavior. he is very quick to go back on his original rendition on a whim and his more controversial edits happen in GITS-related article over less-than-impressive reasons and he is not willing to compromise over the more subtle (but significant) changes. And in the past when "BRD" is mentioned, he would often stop discussing. And i'm sure the same occurs elsewhere whether we notice or not. I'm not making a vote, but there is more to this than meets the eye. ] (]) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (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)?
	::My personal opinions on how these handful of articles should be set up has no basis in whether or not I should be under 1RR restrictions.—] (]) 04:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::
	:::I'm not suggesting that you are, but i definitely disagree you can go scot-free. Afterall, this isn't about opinion, its about how much you're willing to alter the article not to enhance the article, but for personal preference. ] (]) 05:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::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).
	*Oppose, no basis for sanctions. ] (]) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::] 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. :-)
	*'''Support 1RR'''. The trouble Ryulong has, I think, stems from the fact that he tends to treat reverting as the only tool available to him. Someone socking? Revert. Someone still socking? Revert again. Someone ''still'' socking? Keep reverting, no time for SPI. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Keep reverting. Content dispute? Revert. Discussing content dispute? Keep reverting while discussing. Getting problematic behavior dealt with administratively or via the community either doesn't occur to occur to him, or occurs to him so far down the line that everything's gone to hell in a handbasket before he gets around to it. I've discussed this with him before, and at the time he agreed that he needed to stop clinging to the stick and start reaching out for help when this stuff happened, but I haven't really seen that reflected in his behavior.<p>I'm not interested in "sanctions" on him, ''per se''. Ryulong's heart is in the right place, and as often as not at the bottom of the edit war is something reasonable. But the "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" use of reversion needs to stop, and I think a 1RR would be a good guidepost there for him, and act as a reminder that when reverting doesn't work, trying something else is a more reasonable route forward. If the sanction doesn't pass, as seems likely looking at this discussion, I would still urge Ryulong to please, please stop treating reversion as your only option. There are community noticeboards aplenty around for you to report things to; you don't have to handle it all singlehandedly with the "undo" button. ] (]) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::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").
	::Fluffernutter: Ryulong actually has been calling on admin action and the assistance of other editors in more recent difficult situations.--] (]) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::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)
	:::Aren't banned user's sockpuppets reverted on sight and not subject to 3RR anyway? And I constantly go to talk pages, noticeboards, etc. Sockpuppets are incessant. Editors don't honor BRD. No one wants to help me with anything anymore.—] (]) 18:03, 6 August 2014 (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)
	:::: Not to mention that you are instructed to revert vandalism on sight. {{tq|Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Revert more.}} is '''exactly''' what you're supposed to do when you encounter vandalism. Vandalism is one of the ](Reporting to WP:AIV after the 4th edit is advised.) I commend Ryulong for reverting vandalism in that regard. ] (]) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (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)
	:::::That's what I mean when I say "at the bottom of the edit warring is something reasonable". It's possible to do something within policy that is nevertheless a very bad solution; constantly reverting a vandal or sock instead of reporting them and waiting for it to be dealt with is an example of this. If reverting once or twice doesn't help, reverting three, five, or fifty times isn't likely to either, whether policy says you ''can'' or not. ] (]) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (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.
	::::::But I always report them. AIV and SPI are always just backlogged. And the only cases where I've been doing this lately is where the socking is obvious and it's a banned user.—] (]) 23:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::::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)
	*'''Support 1RR''' for the reasons Fluffernutter set out so succinctly above. I know this is not going to win me any friends. Well, tough luck for me. Pete AU aka --] (]) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at ] violated ] quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
	*'''Comment:''' (I’m not here to sit in judgment) Ryulong and I have certainly had our battles, but truth be told, I was kind of looking for a fight. Based on my more recent interactions with him, however, I’ve come to respect his ability to sense when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is especially important on BLPs where a little aggressive reverting of poorly sourced insertions is called for. This is not to diminish the anger and frustration other editors have experienced, but there may be more effective ways of addressing it.--] (]) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::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)
	*'''Oppose''' This would just end up in more blocks for Ryulong when he is attempting to prevent unhelpful edits. He is an adult and should attempt a 1RR himself. ] ] 15:02, 7 August 2014 (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.
	*'''Facepalm''' Not this {{redacted|shit}} again... What have we learned from the last time, that Ryulong thinks that being right means you can break the rules and stick their digits in the community's eye over and over without penalty. '''Support''' the sanctions as written. If other editors are misbehaving after repeated trips to various consensus locations, then Ryulong can bring and propose sanctions for them, but for now it's time to slap the handcuffs on Ryulong since they can't help themselves. <small>I've proposed extreme measures with respect to Ryulong/{{U|Lucia Black}}/{{U|ChrisGualtieri}} before, so my patience/AGF is completely drained with these editors and their Anime/Manga disruptions.</small> ] (]) 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::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."
	*:All this because I'm in a disagreement on one page and restored the original version when there was no consensus to change it? Perhaps you need to restore the good faith you say has run out. Not to mention this talk of an interaction ban with Lucia is entirely unnecessary and unfounded. I don't know anyone thinks one is necessary . I have worked with her on various pages. Just because I don't agree with this one {{redacted|fucking}} article's layout and content does not mean jack {{redacted|shit}}. I start or request discussion in content disputes. I report vandals and sockpuppets. Just because the other party doesn't care and admins and checkusers are too bogged down to block when found does not mean I should be limited from improving this website and keeping it in tip top shape like every other volunteer here.—] (]) 03:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::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)
	*::And that is why you are getting into trouble, because you think protecting Misplaced Pages from incorectness is more important than following the basic BRD. If someone else is violating the BRD rules, bring it to an administrator's attention and wait patiently as there is never ]. Because you can't put down the your favorite omnipurpose tool of revert is exactly why we're here having to discuss this and why consensus is forming up against you. ] (]) 12:53, 10 August 2014 (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 have followed basic BRD. No one else does. (and ). And there's no consensus here. This has been open for practically a week and it's 50/50. And time and time again I try to get outside input on content disputes but no one wants to touch it because it's all fancruft garbage that no one but myself and the people I get into arguments with give a shit about. Just look at the shit between me and Lucia that spawned this. Arguments over whether or not a video game gets its own section because of continuity issues. And the bullshit over adding a colon to the Power Ranger page titles. Or having that section break header on a comment I made on a talk page. No admin wants to touch this shit. No one wants to have the taint of having assisted me in some way. What the hell am I supposed to do?—] (]) 13:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', for a limited term, possibly 4 months, 6 months, or a year.&nbsp; Note that Ryulong is exhibiting denial at a current Arbcom case, .&nbsp; ] (]) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	*:That case is being declined (3 accepting, 7 declining) and I am not involved as the nominator says so. I make 1 comment that the nominator thinks is suspect and I'm dragged into that quagmire all over the use of one dirty word.—] (]) 11:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	* Regretful '''Support''', per fluffernutter. I think that Ryulong is a hard-working editor, and I'm happy to cut a lot of slack to people reverting vandals or socks on controversial topics &c.; but even on much more mundane pages, if somebody disagrees with Ryulong's preferred version, tough luck, because it's easy for Ryulong to hit revert. ] (]) 11:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ec}} Of course we don't want to prevent reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism, self-reverts, and so on; so I think any sanction should retain the ] - thanks, Salvidrim! ] (]) 11:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*:Is this seriously going to be dragged out until a consensus is reached? This is ridiculous. There's clearly no consensus here, certainly not for Nick's original proposal that I be subject to 1RR, discretionary bans, and and interaction ban, and it's still split down the middle regarding 1RR. All that I need to do is not revert a second time when it's a content dispute. Fine. I'll do that. But I shouldn't be penalized because people like Lucia Black or Niemti don't respect BRD or some new editor doesn't bother to look at talk pages. Nor should I be penalized if I identify one of the various long-term trolls I come across constantly and have to clean up after them and both AIV and SPI are heavily backlogged as they usually are. I mean it's been half a week and ].—] (]) 11:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			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)
	== Long standing editorial POV issues at Historicity of Jesus ==
			: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)
	This request for support follows on the recommendation of DRN coordinator ] to seek ANI assistance as noted in his findings , and following from previous Talk Discussion, and Request for Review. Content mediation has been request as per DRN recommendation at ]. This request is for conduct investigation and mediation/arbitration as per DRN recommendation at ].
			:<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)
			*'''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)
			===Voluntary restrictions===
	The long term pattern of actions and behaviours by a set of editors, as found ] and in archived Talk pages going back several months, gives the ''appearance'' that there is a long-term campaign of collusion to develop and maintain a distinct and narrow POV. In short, a vocal sub-set of editors conducts the following:
			{{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?
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	and the skilled use of rhetoric, obfuscation and intentional distortions to discourage, and drive away new editors and recommended edits, or to confound and dis-empower consistently engaged editors striving to bring balance to the article.
			Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Please advise on next steps and process to find some sort of peaceful, reasonable and inclusive solution.
	--] (]) 01:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
	:A similar topic came up when ] was featured on the front page, or nominated for it, I think. I actually took a class in college which examined this subject somewhat. I can assure you, no college-level class studying this would have a syllabus as Christian-centered as Misplaced Pages's sources. However, to be fair, the main subject I remember from college was the resemblance of any likely historical figure to modern conceptions, rather than existence in itself. The basic idea was the the modern conception of Jesus shouldn't be considered to have existed. It then gets into how one defines Jesus..... I remember my professor asking if we thought a time-machine would settle the question of whether Jesus existed, and the general consensus of our class was that it wouldn't. ] (]) 02:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			:* To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
	::Hi, Thank you ]. I believe that you are close to the root of my concern. I believe that there are a variety of academic opinions that would range from 100% acceptance of the full biblical story, right through to 100% acceptance that it is a myth. These various perspectives all have meaning and value within different disciplines and religious groups. It is my position that as editors we are not here to assert the value of one over the over. It is for us to lay out the various positions to allow the reader to better understand the discussion taking place, and to tell the story as it is told by those who best represent the diverse opinions at play. I perceive that the general behaviour of a select group of editors prevents NPOV and seek a way to curb this behaviour, but retain the engagement of this group as a valued contribution to one piece of the discussion. Your advice on next steps would be highly appreciated. --] (]) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			:* The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the ] article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per ] it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? ] (]) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance '''research community'''." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. ] (]) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
	::(ec) That's funny: As an interested lay observer of the Jesus historicity debate, I have come to exactly the same conclusion, which I submit as evidence that I understand the underlying problem quite well even as an outsider. The problem, namely, that there is no certainty about virtually anything regarding Jesus, not even if Jesus was based on a single person, or multiple people, and in what way, and even what most mainstream scholars consider relatively certain about Jesus is so generic it is not really helpful, even if we could travel back to the relevant time and place and look around for historical people who could have been the basis for Jesus. That's the heart of the issue. To adapt two classic quips: "Would the real historical Jesus please stand up?" and "Who was Jesus, and if yes, how many?" Many scholars appear to be rather agnostic now, even if they are hesitant to admit so in public. I have even encountered the suggestion that the Jesus figure was based on an indefinite number of people, a generic type just like a cop character in some Hollywood film might be based on many policemen that the scriptwriters have encountered in their life. Jesus-type characters were dime a dozen at the time and in the region. That's what most people do not realise, and that's why most people are puzzled that the historicity of Jesus should even be a problem in the first place. --] (]) 03:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
	:::Hi, I believe that there are a variety of academic opinions that would range from 100% acceptance of the full biblical story, right through to 100% acceptance that it is a myth. These various perspectives all have meaning and value within different disciplines and religious groups. It is my position that as editors we are not here to assert the value of one over the over. It is for us to lay out the various positions to allow the reader to better understand the discussion taking place, and to tell the story as it is told by those who best represent the diverse opinions at play. I perceive that the general behaviour of a select group of editors prevents NPOV and seek a way to curb this behaviour, but retain the engagement of this group as a valued contribution to one piece of the discussion. Please advise on next steps. --] (]) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
	::::See ], question 3, for what I believe to be a very fair and unbiased representation of the spectrum.
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
	::::Just a remark: 100% acceptance of the full biblical story (maximalism or literalism) means acceptance of virgin birth, all miracles, etc., and amounts to creationism. Don't forget that even in the New Testament, there are assertions that squarely contradict science, such as when Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms in the world from a very high mountain (which implies a flat Earth), which are therefore best interpreted in a metaphorical way. Frankly, I doubt that maximalism is a position that has any appreciable support in serious academia, even among devout Christian scholars.
	::::The current mainstream is probably best represented by scholars like Bart Ehrman, whose position is sharply differentiated from both maximalism and minimalism, let alone mythicism. However, Richard Carrier has just published a challenge of the historicist position, arguing that the evidence in its favour has been misrepresented and is really quite insufficient, while various considerations point rather in a quite different direction. Personally, I have leant towards mythicism for a long time, find Carrier's arguments persuasive and tend to agree with his conclusions, and I believe it will be increasingly difficult to ignore his arguments given that they often seem to be quite accepted already by the likes of Ehrman – only the conclusion is not. My impression is that the consensus in the field is unstable and while outright mythicism may remain fringe for the time being, minimalist or agnostic positions will become more accepted. This is a difficult situation. Editors sceptical of the historicist consensus will anticipate this development eagerly and push for a greater representation of less-than-historicist positions especially. However, even though I share their bias, I think it is too early to start to increase Misplaced Pages's coverage of these positions significantly, as per ] Misplaced Pages should absolutely ''not'' "lead the way" and anticipate coming developments. We must remain conservative. Therefore, despite my sympathies for mythicism, I would admonish the historicism sceptics to hold their horses and keep patiently observing the developments in the field. There's no reason to rush things. Moderate historicism may have feet of clay, but it is still top dog for the time being.
	::::Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and not a substitute for blogs where editors can advertise their opinions, argue and debate them. Nor does the academic dialogue take place here. It is wiser to confide in the strength of the arguments against historicism and rest assured that they will eventually prevail. This is also what I am sure Carrier, Doherty et al. would advise were they asked. --] (]) 07:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{u|Religião, Política e Futebol}} and {{u|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} have both been edit warring at ] over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.
	::The next steps would be naming specific editors instead of "a vocal sub-set of editors", notifying them of the thread, and pointing out specific concerns supported by ]. Explaining how is an appropriate attitude would be a nice bonus. Personally I think that someone whose reply to being found to have misrepresented sources is "I will not debate sources with you" is unfit to edit Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: I am not sure of next steps which is why this formal request exists with an explicit request for direction. I will not engage any further with you as one of those I would bring forward as culpable in this matter. Unlike you and your editorial group I have repeatedly asked first, then acted, sought direction, then decided, asked for external review, mediation and now arbitration in order to stop your continuous abusive harassment of one editor after the other. --] (]) 05:08, 6 August 2014 (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)
	:{{ec}}IseeEwe, once again, you make accusations without providing evidence. that ], all to ] (]) to what the article's sources generally indicate to be a minority (if not ] view). You were reverted five times by three different editors in the past two days, and you'v responded all but the last time by reverting once time has passed ( , , , ). You have:
			:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*
			::I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* when I've barely been at that page for four months,
			:It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. ] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*
			:It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You are only tendentious. You had a slight point in that, while ], I did not leave you a message asking you not to make the exact sort of edits that most people on the talk page were saying not to make, even though your behavior gives no reason to believe it'd've made a difference, especially with you indicating ] -- for which . ] (]) 03:12, 6 August 2014 (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)
	:: I am not sure of next steps which is why this formal request exists with an explicit request for direction. I will not engage any further with you as one of those I would bring forward as culpable in this matter -if you persist in harping and attacking. Unlike you and your editorial group I have repeatedly asked first, then acted, sought direction, then decided, asked for external review, mediation and now arbitration in order to stop the continuous abusive harassment of one editor after the other. As per the note on the talk page I have suggest a solution to you, ], and believe that mediation and cooperation will help us move down that road. I am here seeking mediation, not to exclude, but to include, not to punish, but to calm. There is no evil intention here. Please consider. --] (]) 05:08, 6 August 2014 (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)
	:::The next step is that I have blocked you for two weeks for personal attacks, disruptive editing and edit warring at ], ]. , cited by several users above, is little short of amazing, and there are more examples in ]'s post above. I realize you are a new user (assuming that are unfounded), but this amount of ] is not to be tolerated here. I'd have placed a considerably longer block if you'd been here longer. ] &#124; ] 08:43, 6 August 2014 (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)
	::::::Request to ]. Please consider shortening the block. I agree with you that ISeeEwe was being tendentious and disruptive, and was using a request for resolution in a way that was itself disruptive, by continuing to make allegations of abuse without providing diffs. However, in the absence of a previous block history, I think (even after the most recent tirade on the talk page) that the block could be shortened to one week, which still might be long enough for ISeeEwe to learn that making repeated unsupported allegations is not useful. ] (]) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (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.
	::::Are you kidding? Talk about hypocritical and heavy-handed. More abusive comments than that are a dime a dozen on Misplaced Pages, and IseeEwe actually sought dispute-resolution and was told to come here. ] (]) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			*Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of '''information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family'''.
	:::::So, the precedent being set is that if you've made poor edits in the past, you shouldn't later do the right thing via dispute resolution, because it will call attention to your poor edits, and the result of seeking dispute resolution will be that you are blocked. ] (]) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			**The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
	::::::In the past? The egregious edits that I referred to, and in one case linked to, were made two days ago at the most. "Misplaced Pages time" pushes things into the past pretty fast, but not that fast. Also, "hypocritical" is a serious accusation concerning my motives. Can I trouble you to explain your basis for it, ]? ] &#124; ] 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
			**{{ping|Sundayclose}} Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
	::::::::As mentioned above, I would suggest that ] shorten the (necessary) block. With no previous block history, we don't know that such a long block is the only way to restore useful discussion. ] (]) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			**During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, {{u|74.12.250.57}}, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, {{u|2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803}}, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
	:::::::::The user has posted an unblock request, and I prefer to let an uninvolved admin review it in the usual way. I have no objection if that admin, or another, should decide to unblock or to shorten the block, and I've made a note to that effect on the user's talkpage. Mind you, it wasn't a very good unblock request (as you imply above, Robert), and I've told the user so. S/he can change it at any time. ] &#124; ] 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
			**The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
	::::::::::I agree with user: ], ] and ] that the block should be shortened and was ''absolutely'' excessive. Also, the user never actually made an unblock request. What they posted was basically a rant. <span style="border:2.5px solid black;padding:1px;">] (] &#124; ])</font></span> 03:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			**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:
	===Call for an uninvolved admin to review the block===
			**Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
	I have already invited an admin — any admin — to unblock or shorten the block on their own responsibility, without asking me, but it's possible that not many admins have read this thread. None have commented, anyway (excepting ], who is involved in the content dispute). I don't myself feel like reducing the block, both because I think it was about right to begin with and because of the user's demeanour after the block, such as in their "proofs" that they did nothing wrong and their continued attacks on those who disagree with them. Even after allowances made for venting while blocked, and for the user's newness, I don't like it much. But your mileage may certainly vary, and in view of the voices above calling for a reduction in block length, I'm putting this appeal where it'll show up in the ANI table of contents. Please review and, non-admins, please comment. ] &#124; ] 16:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC).
			**On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
	*Two weeks seems a bit much. I personally would've topped out at 72 hours but most likely I would've given 24 to 48 hours to stop the accusations w/o evidence and edit warring. Now that IseeEwe has listed his , an unblock might be appropriate with that content copied over here and discussion can resume over their concerns if they agree not to edit war.--v/r - ]] 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			**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:
	*I agree that two weeks may be too long, but I will not unblock at the moment, because in the most recent message linked by TParis, IseeEwe continues to frame the revisionist views he promotes as being on their way to supplanting academic consensus (i.e. Prometheus Books being a "divergent academic perspective"). I think blocking IseeEwe is an imperfect but acceptable way to give everyone some time to cool down. ] ] 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			**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:
	*Any block may be deemed too long by someone, and perhaps this one is, perhaps not. Calling it "''absolutely'' excessive, {{U|MrScorch6200}}, is not a productive way of convincing your ''de facto'' opponent. But for any block deemed too long, there is an easy way out: a well-phrased unblock request that basically says "OK, I won't do it again". Rants rarely lead to unblocks; they do nothing but suggest that the block was proper. ] (]) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			**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:
	**Quite right, there is a difference between "what the fuck are you thinking" and "I would have done it differently".--v/r - ]] 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			**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:
	*Reviewing/discussing with another administrator presently ... '''] ]]''' 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
	**Unblocked. '''] ]]''' 20:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			*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)
	== User Jim-Siduri again - I think this might merit admin attention ==
	{{archive top|Indefinitely blocked with great regret per consensus below. '''] ]]''' 17:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	See here , and the edit summary for the following post. It appears that ] has taken it upon himself to '''issue a press release on behalf of a non-existent 'Misplaced Pages Reform/Civility Movement',''' giving the URL for ] as a 'mirror', and consequently implying that this is some sort of official project. I'm at a loss as to what exactly he is trying to achieve, but whatever it is, I can't help feeling that it is an abuse of Misplaced Pages facilities to be doing it. It should be noted that this isn't the first time that Jim-Siduri has invented fictitious Misplaced Pages projects, and that he has repeatedly been told to learn how Misplaced Pages works before embarking on ambitious projects to 'reform' it. Given this latest episode, I suspect that it may finally be time to show him the door... ] (]) 02:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:For now I've collapsed the section, in case he actually sends it and someone actually comes to the page. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 02:56, 6 August 2014 (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)
	::Given that he edited the press release to read 'submitted', and given the edit summary "Fly fly little bird, make our dreams a reality...)", it seems reasonable to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that it has been submitted somewhere or other... ] (]) 03:02, 6 August 2014 (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. ] (]) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It appears already to have been distributed but embargoed until about 45 minutes from now. If this is not legitimate, he needs to withdraw it immediately. ]] 03:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{facepalm}}--]] 13:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I've blanked the section. The material posted by Jim-Siduri was a misrepresentation as to what the off-wiki project "is" and it contained ] personal details about another person. Also, had ] problems. – ] (]) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
	::I'd assumed that the contact details were for Jim-Siduri himself. If they ''were't'', we have a more serious issue here. In either case, I think we need to consider whether further action is needed. Personally, I had already prior to this latest event come to the conclusion, based on JI-Siduri's prior behaviour, that he shows little sign of ever becoming a useful contributor to Misplaced Pages, and this bizarre behaviour merely confirms my opinion. I have no doubt of his good intentions, but he seems unwilling to actually do any significant encyclopaedic work, shows no inclination whatsoever to actually ''learn how Misplaced Pages works'' before going off on another flight of fancy over proposed 'reforms', and seems entirely oblivious to the fact that his repeated spamming of multiple pages with his ill-researched ideas has been disruptive. To be blunt, in my opinion he seems to simply lack the competence to be permitted to continue like this. ] (]) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
	:::Agree with ATG. A history of very verbose postings on his mostly impractical ideas of how Misplaced Pages should be changed, and nothing much else. His proposed policy in his] that any editor willing to be voluntarily blocked should first get three uncontested changes to Misplaced Pages was particularly strange. He seems well-intentioned and has been given a pass on several things (using multiple accounts, misuse of user space, etc.) and the community has devoted quite a bit of time and effort in an attempt to assist him, but I think this last episode is too much. ] (]) 19:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
	::::To be clear, I assumed the details were about another person. The material was just too "off-topic" to be reliable. He has no userpage which might have served to verify the details. Even if the data was about Jim-Siduri, it was bizarre and spamming. – ] (]) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (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)
	===Unfortunately Necessary Proposal===
			::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)
	There have, as noted, been problems with this editor in the past. He initially wanted to use three user accounts, all of which would be shared by the potential members of his project. I have no idea what the purpose of his project is, except to use Misplaced Pages as his web platform to make the world a better place. After he was told that this was not how Misplaced Pages works, he agreed to use only one account.
			::: 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)
	It now seems that he is issuing a "press release" for some unrecognized project, thus complicating an area in which Misplaced Pages already has enough difficulty of its own making, without the need for further confusion due to ] thinking. I have to recommend an indefinite block. ] (]) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (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)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per proposer, and per my reasoning above. Good intentions are all very well, but combined with an apparent inability to get a clue, they may result in a net negative to the project - which is clearly the case here. ] (]) 19:17, 6 August 2014 (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)
	*'''Support''' – The "press-release" was just to strange. Talk pages should not be creative writing exercises. Unless Jim-Siduri would own-up to the disruptive nature of the editing, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the guidelines & policies I cannot see how his continued participation would be helpful. – ] (]) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' We should not simply indefinitely block editors who engage in this sort of stuff. Jim seems to have his heart in the right place, and he took the initiative to finally use LightBreather's 'proposal page' for the civility stuff. All in all, he has not breached any exact policy/guidelines that I can see, except maybe ], but the way we deal with that is by deletion/omit the material and eventually a block if they continue to recreate the page. He seems to not be reverting any hatting of the content. I !vote to '''Put on notice'''. ] (]) 20:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Does LightBreather even know that Jim-Siduri posted all that in her user space? She seems not to have responded to it... ] (]) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I've just checked with Lightbreather - she wasn't aware of it. ] (]) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I removed it. Partially because it was actually the only hit on Google for this 'proposal', but also because I didn't see anywhere he'd asked/told her about it. I've explained this to her and obviously said she can restore it (with the noindex template I added left there). ] (]) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' far more heat than light coming from this user. Well-intentioned disruption is still disruption. ]&nbsp;]] 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' We've invested enough time and effort. Per ] "If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and focus your mentoring efforts on a better candidate." ] (]) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I meant to add that I agree with the caveat by ]. I can't see anything coming of it, but I'm usually in favour of another chance for good faith editors. ] (]) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' I've been thinking about this all day, but he's just taken up to much time that other editors could be using constructively, and either used other accounts/IP addresses or his friends have been working with him. See for instance ] from April 2012. ] (]) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Just disruptive. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Sorrowful support''' Misplaced Pages is not the right place for everyone, and there is enough work to do here without distractions. ] (]) 00:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' And add this name to the ban list. These people come here hoping to use the project for other means. We, as a community are way too patient with these types of disruptive users. --]<small> ]</small> 02:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Jim-Siduri has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is all about. A chance was given for them to get to grips but rather than use it wisely, they've squandered it on this other odd venture. If this isn't nipped in the bud, who knows how long this will go on for? ] (]) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Regretful Support''' per {{u|Yunshui}}. Disruption is disruption. They can be unblocked in the future if they make it clear they understand what Misplaced Pages is (an encyclopedia). <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Melancholy support'''. I have to agree with ] above. ] &#124; ] 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
	*'''Support some editing restrictions'''. Jim-Siduri has just created ] with the reading "Some of us suggest some of us help new non-profit organizations (such as perhaps this one...) find their feet on Misplaced Pages and we might be just a touch more welcoming and friendly to our new interested potential editors...". While probably unrelated to the press release issue above, it does stray uncomfortably far into advertisement/advocacy territory. I'm not entirely sure an outright ''ban'' is necessary, but some editing restrictions do appear necessary. ] (]) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::One of Jim-Siduri's more persistently irritating habits is the endless repetition of the phrase 'some of us...' in his walls of text. Whether he is intentionally doing it to give the impression that he's speaking for other people, or whether it's just another symptom of his cluelessness I'm not sure - but I would have to suggest that if he ''is'' to be permitted to continue editing, it should be on the condition that he stops misrepresenting his personal opinions as anything but just that - no imaginary 'projects', no drafting in other people into his schemes without their consent as he appears to have done while creating his 'press release', and no assertions that 'some of us...' think anything whatsoever. He should either speak for himself, or put a cork in it - it doesn't fool anyone... ] (]) 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per Yunshui and Robert McClenon. This pattern of disruptive editing has gone on long enough. {{Non-administrator observation|admin}} ] (] - ]) 17:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			== Naniwoofg ==
	== PS171 and disregarding consensus ==
			{{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)
	This has been an ongoing issue for several months now, and I have no idea what else to do at this point, so I come here. This is my first report at AN/I, so please forgive me if it is unnecessarily detailed; I'm honestly not sure where to cut off the information, as I believe all of it is relevant.
			: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)
	PS171 primarily edits the Misplaced Pages page of ], which is where our disagreements began. The user's first edit, as far as I can tell, was in December 2013 when he/she changed the picture from a recent (but admittedly bad) photo of DiCaprio at a '']'' premiere to one of him . Nothing wrong with this at the time, no one really argued that the older image was better. I to the ''Wolf'' image without really thinking it through, and was by PS171. I didn't really think anything of it, and let it go. Then, in early February, {{u|Muboshgu}} to an alternate photo from the same premiere, which was again , again without an edit summary, by PS171. Despite this behaviour, it didn't really become an issue until May, when I added a high-quality photo of DiCaprio from the London premiere of ''Wolf''.
			:'''Support''' sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on ] article, which . Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the ] ''before the 2019 renovation''. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) ==
	I added a photo of him from January 2014 in , dated May 3, 2014. This change by PS171, again without an editor summary, a little over a week later. Due to the lack of edit summary, I with the edit summary "Inexplicable and unexplained removal of higher quality, more recent, better picture." I was met with another , but with a well thought out edit summary: "I think the quality of this picture is good, besides, it refers the reader right at the beginning of the article to a movie that is more representative of DiCaprio's work (he's not a comedy actor)". At this point I'm still assuming good faith, guessing that the editor is unaware that the relevance to a person's career does not necessarily define what should and shouldn't be included (DiCaprio is still in his prime, so any photo from this period is acceptable). I again, saying "That does not make a difference at all. If a recent, higher quality image exists, there is no reason not to add it. Suspense/horror isn't his usual work either." I get , with PS171 citing DiCaprio's alleged "strange, forced smile on pic" and that he/she "wouldn't call it the same quality." I stopped reverting to avoid violating ], but {{u|MrX}} sourcing technical reasons the photo was better ("Less cropped, better exposure and color, and more current.") PS171 (now in violation of 3RR) stating simply "well, we don't agree then". He/she was by {{u|ForteSP33}}, agreeing that the "Newer Photo is better."
			*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
	I, Corvoe at the time, posted to PS171's (a discussion that has recently been ) and we discussed our disagreement at length. In a bit of a side note, at one point during this discussion, I compared the new DiCaprio photo to the one for ], a Featured Article: the photo was almost immediately by PS171, sourcing "shock value" (a statement that would appear several times later). Our discussion started going in circles with neither of us agreeing, so I opened a discussion on the which ended in a consensus to change to the new image. PS171 did not remove the image, but stating "the lead image guideline still applies here." This is a recurring statement from PS171. I , unable to find anything that backed up PS171's claims. I was with the rationale that "the movie does not represent the subject fairly and this is the lead, so we swap the images as I suggested or shorten the caption..." So, again, I went to ]. PS171 repeatedly accused me of not acting "in ]] spirit", a claim which was never explained over the duration of the discussion. {{u|Lady Lotus}} sourced ] as a reason to include the premiere mention, to which PS171 said "We could mention Titanic, Inception, The Departed, The Aviator etc. twice in the lead, but if you try to act according to WP:Leadimage, you won't mention this mess of a comedy TWICE in the lead. Or rather use the other image instead." At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of ] in my eyes. {{u|Erik}} joined the discussion, but was relatively neutral in the matter, stating that he "would even be fine with keeping it simple with "DiCaprio in January 2014" because we do not have to be explanatory with the lead image", and PS171 agreed with him. I expressed my confusion as to what I had done wrong in regards to WP:LEADIMAGE, and was again told that I was "going clearly against its spirit by mentioning a comedy twice in the lead of an article about a DRAMA actor" before he/she references a passage from LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred". At this point, some editors were confused as to what PS171 meant by shock value. Lady Lotus asked what PS171 meant by this, to which she received no answer. I posted one more reply, and since the conversation ended with most editors supporting the mention of the film's premiere, I .
			The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br>
			The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the ] pages and even had raised the issue here , with no visible actions following.
	Then, in July, PS171 came back and again, back to not including an edit summary. I posted on his/her once more, strongly suggesting that the editor restart the discussion on the article's talk page. I , sourcing the talk page discussion. The edits died down for a few weeks, before, this morning (August 6), PS171 ''again''. MrX reverted the edits, noting the .
			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
	PS171 has worked exclusively on Leonardo DiCaprio's article since December 2013, and almost all of his/her edits have been restoring to the preferred version; whether it be content that was agreed to be deleted, the image change, or the image caption, this editor has done nothing but argue against consensus and change back to the version he/she likes. I don't believe this editor is able to collaborate with others, so I am reporting PS171 here. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::The majority (around 80%) of this lengthy comment deals with an issue (about the image) that was dealt with quite a while ago, while only touching the current, I mean real issue here (''the right proportions of movie mentions in the lead''). The issue: User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus are trying to push as many mentions of the comedy Wolf of Wall Street into the lead of the article as they can, while being more moderate with the real milestones like Titanic, Inception, The Departed etc.
	::This is with no less than three(!) mentions of this particular comedy. The problem is that this is a drama actor, not a comedy actor and movies like Titanic are only mentioned once which to me DOES seem disproportionate representation of the actor's work in the lead.
	::"At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my eyes." I'm asking the dear admins according to them how should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy ''proportionately''. Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy (Wolf of Wall Street)? In this case why on Earth are we mentioning the comedy more times than these movies? I repeatedly argued that if Wolf of W. S. is mentioned once, we could add a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception? How do you see it? Should I cite the profit margins or the number of awards to emphasize the problem or do you too feel it?
	::"PS171 primarily edits the Misplaced Pages page of Leonardo DiCaprio" - lately, yes, I have less time to edit, but if you look at all my edits I think it looks a little bit more diverse than that.
	::In a nutshell. ] (]) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::''Where are you getting this stuff?'' This argument, '''''still''''', isn't over the lead section. In no way are myself nor Lady Lotus wanting to give undue weight to anything. We just want the photo's caption to be as descriptive as possible. I don't understand how this is confusing, I've been extremely straight forward. In no way is ''any'' of this about the lead section, it is entirely focused on the image's caption (yes, the image issue was resolved, but you were still editing against consensus). My post here has no double meaning, no hidden purpose. This post is to report that you are an editor who edits against consensus frequently. That is ''it''. As for your last point, I hardly think eight months qualifies as "lately". Other than that one ] edit, you've worked on either DiCaprio's page or his filmography page since December 2013, with almost all of the ones to his article restoring the same version every time. Reverting the image, reverting the caption, reverting the lead, reverting something that was agreed upon or that shouldn't be controversial. I have nothing to do with the lead of this section, I've changed "In the 2000s" to "Since the 2000s" and that's it. So stop throwing all of these accusations at me when there's nothing to back them up. You're reading between the lines, but there's nothing there. It's fabrication. I just want you to discuss your changes first, is that too much to ask?
	:::This argument is going nowhere. I keep trying to reason with you, explain my motivations and my reasonings, and you just decide that I'm lying. I always hate to link to ], but I believe that it applies here. We are not out to get you, we don't think you're editing in bad faith, you just don't seem to accept that you need to discuss controversial changes first. ] (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
	:This is a clear case of ignoring consensus and slowly edit warring. I would recommend a final warning, followed by escalating blocks if this conduct continues. I think it's telling that PS171 blanked most of their talk page moments before making the edit to Leonardo DiCaprio.- ]] 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: on how the lead should look like. Probably you forgot this edit of yours? Read my comment below before ''again'' rushing your judgment.
	:::I blanked my talk page, because there was only irrelevant stuff there (discussion regarding the image, an issue we already dealt with). The relevant discussion can be found on the talk page of the article, right now. ] (]) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I agree with Sock when the majority of PS171's points were just I don't like it. He wouldn't answer questions, he just kept repeating "least shock value" when no one knew what he meant by that. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 12:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::You found my arguments strange, because you STILL haven't read ]: ''Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred.'' And I had to build concensus with editors who didn't even bother to read the rules... ] (]) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::You keep quoting that segment without explaining how it applies. Why is the image of Leonardo DiCaprio the one of "least shock value"? How is saying he was at a premiere for a film he is in surprising to anyone? We have all read ], particularly that portion which you've quoted before. It just does not apply in this case, and you aren't explaining how you think it does. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I only reacted to the comment of Lady Lotus. The Shutter Island photo is better and the concensus was we may keep the image you favor (the current one) but without mentioning the comedy title. It's already mentioned in the lead once and it ''would disproportionately overemphasize a comedy in the lead about a drama actor''. Remember? ] (]) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: ,
	'''The last major argument on the talk page''' is this:
	<blockquote>You can make light of this, but this is the lead of the article. I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could ''proportionately'' add at least a whole paragraph on ] or ], and we could still add a short description of movies like ] or ]... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy. ] (]) 16:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	</blockquote>
	'''Nobody ever countered this''' argument with anything and we finished the discussion.<br>
	If we do add ] twice, we could write a ''whole novel'' on ], which is still the second highest grossing movie all time and was the highest grossing movie at the time.<br>
	Feel free to read the and draw your own conclusions about the "concensus" that you find there.<br>
	80% of the comment of admin-wannabe User:Corvoe details the image issue above which has been dealt with long ago just to throw mud on me, but he's doing only everything to hide the real issue here: Finding the right proportions in the lead of the article. This is a drama actor to whom we can thank movies like Titanic, Inception, Shutter Island etc. and all he and User:Lady Lotus are trying to do is '''overemphasizing''' a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article. ] (]) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Oh for god's sake, stop calling me an admin-wannabe. I'm not rushing to judgment, I've been debating on whether or not this was worthwhile for some time now. When I saw you'd reverted again, I figured that was the last straw. I don't care about the content of the lead, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. What this comment is about is that you ''keep undoing others' edits with no justification''. The current issue is that, despite constantly being reverted and disagreed with, you reinstate and reinstate your version, over and over.
	:Also, what are you talking about? The last major point was talking about what shock value you meant. You were the only one discussing the content of the lead, while the discussion was supposed to be focused on the image and the caption. If you want to discuss the lead, go ahead. I actually support some of your edits (including the one you tried you use as "evidence" that I'm being contradictory when it's completely unrelated), but that's neither here nor there. I was simply pointing out that you had edited without consensus.
	:This has gone on long enough. The image changing issue, you ceased. I will give you that. It doesn't change the fact that you are ''still edit warring'' by changing the caption we all agreed on. Erik was neutral on the matter, and suggested a theoretical option, while myself, Lady Lotus, and MrX were in favour of the current caption. 3-1-1 does not mean you just change it. We would need to have another discussion, maybe involve more editors, and that's just unnecessary.
	:To sum up all that, the issue is that you keep changing the caption without discussing it or talking to anyone. What you need to do is stop. ] would be good reading; you were bold, we reverted, we've discussed, and we reached consensus. That's it. Either leave it be, or start another discussion. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	(edit conflict)I changed the title of this thread to '''Finding the right proportions in the lead of the Leonardo DiCaprio article''' to avoid personal attacks, but ] . So much about this guy, who wants to be an admin here one day.<br>
	Regarding the actual issue that we are discussing here I rest my case. ] (]) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::That's a personal attack? You are a user called PS171 who is disregarding consensus. I didn't call you a name, I didn't say you were a horrible person, I didn't even say you were acting in bad faith. I stated the subject of discussion, which is you and your disregard for consensus. Please, stop changing the title of this thread and stop reverting people on DiCaprio's article until this is settled. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I almost forgot, why did you change ? ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ec}}PS171 has yet again, despite us being mid-discussion about it. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	::PS171, repeatedly changing the title of this thread is in violation of ]. This header is not a personal attack, as ] states that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. I've provided a great deal of evidence in regards to my accusation about your behaviour, and therefore am not personally attacking you. Leave it be. This shouldn't even be argued. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	], I only added a without removing your title again, you even deleted that one, so while you're complaining about revert warring you reverted on this page ]!<br>
	Isn't it ironic that while you're complaining you also ''link your own revert'' on the DiCaprio article? Mid-discussion?<br>
	To the admins: to understand what kind of "concensus" Corvoe refers to. Don't divert the attention from the real issue with the lead section of the article here:
	<blockquote>(...)I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could ''proportionately'' add at least a whole paragraph on ] or ], and we could still add a short description of movies like ] or ]... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy.</blockquote> ] (]) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I'm not edit warring by restoring content you ''shouldn't be changing''. ] is a guideline, one you are flagrantly disregarding every time you change the thread title, so I'm not in the wrong here. As for the content, I intentionally linked to my revert, which was undoing an edit ''you'' made that was directly related to this discussion. As for you still thinking the discussion is about the lead section, I don't know what else to say. I guess now I play the waiting game. ''']''' (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].
	::Hm... ] is a guideline and it also says: ''Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.''
	::Is the thread title that I suggested '''Finding the right proportions in the lead of the Leonardo DiCaprio article''' more descriptive, less one-sided or not? Or your major goal was to attack me, not to solve the issues with the lead?
	::You only create new issues to divert the attention away from the real issue behind this? ] (]) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
	:::And you slyly neglect the very next sentence: "To avoid disputes, '''it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread''', if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Also, the proportions of the lead is ''still'' isn't what this discussion about. This discussion is in fact about you, the behaviour you've exerted as an editor, and the disregard for consensus that you have shown. This isn't about the content. I'm not saying we're right or we're wrong. I don't want an admin to come in and tell me that the caption is perfect and the image is great. That isn't the point. What I want is for you to build Misplaced Pages ''with'' us, not against us. You participate in discussions when there are disputes, which is an admirable quality, but you completely ignore the outcome of those discussions and go about your editing, which is, to understate, not an admirable quality. I want to be able to work with you, I really do. But I can't if you won't listen to what anyone else has to say. When consensus is built and you disagree, that's okay; work with people to find a middle-ground. Maybe create a draft of the lead, work through it with other editors, ''then'' put it in the article when you all agree that it's sufficient. Don't just flagrantly disregard everything that was discussed in favour of the version ]. ] (pka '''Corvoe''') ]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			] (]) 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)
	::::How am I "overemphasizing a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article"? That doesn't even make sense. I was saying where he was when the picture was taken. DiCaprio does comedies, he's an actor, he's all over the board. Saying where he was when the picture was taking isn't overemphasizing anything, it's just telling people where he was! The lead is a summary of his career and article, if you don't want to wikilink the article in the caption then don't, I don't care.
			::{{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)
			:::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 @] - 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)
			::::{{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)
			::::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)
			::::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)
			:::::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)
			::::::Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We also have ]. ] (]) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. ). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the ], ], ] and ] by some ''de facto laws''. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only ], ] and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. ]). That renders ''de facto maps'' a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
			:Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|''de facto laws''}}? You're way too confused. {{langnf|la|de jure|by (some country's) law}} is the total opposite of {{langnf|la|de facto|by facts, in reality}}. That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, ]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (],] etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some ''consensus'' or ''de facto bodrers'' pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
			*:If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. ] (]) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' I'm a bit concerned that {{U|Unas964}} has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes , regarding ] "pro-Russian attacks." at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a ] mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to ] was reverted with an edit summary of - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. ] (]) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964===
	::::And do not change "PS171 and disregard for consensus" as this is about you and your disregard for consensus. You might join the conversation but ultimately you will change it to whatever you think is best. Nope. Not how it's done.
			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)
	::::One of your arguments on the caption was "The Wolf of Wall Street has very little to do with the 20-year long career of this actor, and the movie is already mentioned in the lead text." Again, it's JUST saying where he was. It's not trying to say THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER! it's just stating where he was when it was taken. Much like the majority of many other peoples infobox captions. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 19:40, 6 August 2014 (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)
			:'''support indef''' per the doubling down above of the ]. ] (]) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Edward Myer ==
	Although sometimes third party people chimed in (pro or contra), ] and ] ususally called themselves "concensus", so if admins look into the real deal here (''the representation of this drama actor's career in the lead with the right emphasis and the right proportions''), that's OK to me. ] (]) 20:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Edward Myer}}
	:If 3 editors are telling you to stop reverts and take it to the talk page where then no one agrees with you, I think the consensus is clear. If you wish to RfC then go for it. And your edit summary "If we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception" What does saying where he was in the caption have anything to do with mentioning other movies to his lead? Seriously. I don't understand your arguments, please explain. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{u|Edward Myer}} was recently ] for two weeks, for creating a sock account to retaliate against myself and another AfC reviewer whose reviews they didn't like. (The socking was just the tip of the iceberg, there's much more to this as ] shows.) That block expired a few days ago, and since then they're back on the war footing, complaining and insinuating ], ] and ]; as well as posting similar stuff on the talk pages of ], ] and ]. I think this needs to stop; for one thing it's a time sink, and I for one really don't care for the belligerence. I don't think I should be the one to indef them, as I'm involved, but I'd be grateful if someone did. --] (]) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Exactly. This is not the place to hash out a content dispute and admins do not adjudicate content disputes. If PS171 is not able to convince most of the involved editors that his edit should be included, then the next step would be for him to start an RfC. Reinserting the same content over and over, against the protests of other editors is edit warring, even if it spans several months.- ]] 21:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			*I am not involved except insofar as I have declined ], but I saw their behaviour towards others and it made me consider whether I would make a review, especially to decline. A less resilient reviewer might well have avoided it.
	Holy crap. It seems obvious to me that PS171 needs a short block to stop this disruption. Whether PS171 needs a longer block, I do not know. But this edit waring, disruption, and ignoring consensus needs to stop immediately. ] (]) 00:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I confess that I am waiting for the invective, and I support {{u|DoubleGrazing}}'s well measured request on that basis.
			:My view is for one final attempt in case they are educable. If they are not then 'final' should mean 'indefinite editing restrictions' 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::They have been ], . it seems like they simply dislike what many editors are saying. Previously blocked for sock activity. They also are also now actively editing a fork of the draft article over at ]. Seems like they have been given plenty of changes to do the right thing. ] ]&thinsp;] 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::To be fair, the sandbox may have a better shot at acceptance! I aways believe in extending my good faith as far as possible. I have seen some remarkable turnarounds by doing so. Obviously there comes a point, but I am not wholly sure we are there yet. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Thanks for taking the initiative in filing this ANI, DG; I was || this close to filing it myself. This user ]. - ] ] 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. ] (]) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{smalldiv|1=The above post is a duplicate of that posted at . ]&nbsp;] 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Seems like a clear case of ] and just wanting to push an article to mainspace and ] without even citing such. Sounds like a longer block may be necessary. ]&thinsp;] 23:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*], this is serious. Have you read over this complaint? Can you let this grudge go and go on to do some productive editing and let the past be the past? If you continue on this path, I don't see you editing on Misplaced Pages for the long term. This is a moment where you can choose to change your approach and turn around you time here as an editor. But it is up to your willingness to do so. Does that sound like something you can and want to do? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*In the past month I edited the article basically just yesterday without violating any rule.
			*:My field of expertise is Hip Hop. I do intend to do other articles on other subjects, and add relevant updates to current live articles. I'm here to be apart of the community and contribute to[REDACTED] in a specific field that I'm passionate about. I hold no grudge or ill will for no one. As I said to LiZ I had to get adjusted to how communication on[REDACTED] works. ] (]) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*I won't count how many times just in this thread I referred the admins to the relevant talk page discussion, the outcome of which seems to be disputed. (User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus stopped adding arguments after my last one which you can find above quoted more than once, I won't copy it here ''again''.)
	:*When somebody stops adding any relevant arguments on the talk page and keeps pushing one specific comedy in the lead of an article about a drama actor, it's difficult to see here "concensus". MrX certain movies from the lead after reading the talk page discussion, but now probably changed his mind, so he needs to decide what kind of lead he wants... I'd still say that usually Corvoe and Lady Lotus called themselves "concensus", also see the point below.
	:*Besides, I really don't know whether tricks and '''are even allowed to influence''' the decision of the admins at a thread like that, especially from ] here. ] (]) 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Before any action is taken, I have made a substantial offer of assistance to Edward Myer on their user talk page. I am no-one special to make the offer, and I would like us to take a little time to see if it can be effective before reaching any conclusion. I have had some success before with helping editors who are in pain here. The offer is in the spirit of my early post in this thread. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 07:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::That last response from you just proves that you don't want to explain what you mean and it's like you don't even read what we wrote. I asked you to explain your argument because honestly to me, it makes no sense. You have such a problem with "pushing one specific comedy in the lead" when you won't respond to me when I ask how is it pushing when it's just saying where he was? Answer that. It's a caption, it's allowed and also proper to just say where they were at the time. He was at a premiere of his movie.
			::I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. ] (]) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We have started to work together. May I suggest respectfully that any other matters be set aside for the duration? They can always be returned to if deemed necessary. My hope is that editors will not feel it to be necessary. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? ] (]) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User talk page access, Wiseguy012 ==
	:::We also said that consensus was clear and if you weren't ok with it then you could have RfC but you didn't. And what "tricks" are you talking about? He didn't try to sway my thinking, he didn't tell me what to say, he just wanted me to weigh in which is perfectly acceptable. I had already weighed in once and he was tired of stressing out of this with your arguments going no where and not responding to any of ours. That is not a trick. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 11:28, 7 August 2014 (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)}}
			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 ==
	::::Why does my desire for adminship have any bearing on this? Yeah, I would like to be at some point, but it's far from a priority and not anything I see happening in the near future. Even assuming I was wanting to be one right now, it still wouldn't matter in the context of this discussion. Further, I suggest you read over ] so you can understand that posting to the talk pages of Lady Lotus and MrX was ''not'' trickery. I posted "on the user talk pages of concerned editors" and " mentioned in the discussion", both listed as appropriate notification under that guideline, and I did not try to sway them in any direction, just that I wanted additional opinions. I encourage you to notify editors of this discussion as well, that way we could get more outside perspectives rather than running in circles. All that said, I would appreciate it if you would stop making these baseless accusations against me just because we disagree. ] ] 14:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{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:
	The editors already knew about this discussion, no second notification was needed. Does ] demand repeated notifications when your argument seems to fade a bit?<br>
			*, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
	You called Lady Lotus back, because , which couldn't be a ''more neutral wording'' in a ''more neutral tone'' (see the guideline that you cited) for a note.<br>
			*: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
	If you're stressed out, it's because you openly admitted that you're ONLY here to attack me and not to solve the issues with the lead. ] (]) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			*, , , , : 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)
	:How is me acknowledging my stress over this situation non-neutral? I said I wanted other voices so I didn't have to keep going in circles with you, which didn't exactly work out how I thought it might. They may not have been following the discussion closely (as it appears they weren't, probably unaware it had bloated this much) so I asked for them to return and express opinions on the recent developments. You keep focusing on me, like I'm out to get you and that I'm masking some lead issue. I'm not going to repeat this again: ''This is not about the lead, this is about you ignoring consensus''. Look at the thread title, that's why I keep changing it back. Nothing about this involves the lead. The one edit I've done to the lead, as I already said, was making a tiny change to one of your edits to the lead because the 2000s and 2010s aren't the same. '''That is it'''. Look through the edit history, see if you can find other times where I've done anything related to the lead. Half of it, unfortunately, is me reverting you for your changes against consensus. I'll repost one of Lady Lotus's comments you may not have seen, since she words it better than I can: "One of your arguments on the caption was "The Wolf of Wall Street has very little to do with the 20-year long career of this actor, and the movie is already mentioned in the lead text." Again, it's JUST saying where he was. It's not trying to say THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER! it's just stating where he was when it was taken. Much like the majority of many other peoples infobox captions." You didn't answer this argument, you went right back to fruitlessly harrassing me and ignoring completely counter points, then digging up "dirt" that is really me just following a perfectly acceptable procedure. This is entirely about the photo caption that you keep changing without any reasoning and against consensus. I'm not attacking you, I'm reporting your behaviour. I feel like a broken record.
			:], 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)
	:Are any admins willing to comment on this? I'm guessing the size of this conversation is probably a deterrent, but I really think some outside opinions are needed if this circular argument is ever going to end. ] ] 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			::{{done}} ] (]) 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 ] (]) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (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)
			::::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)
			== On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] ==
	::Until you answer the questions that you think you have so slyly avoided, I am done with this discussion because it's going no where. PS refuses to answer questions and is completely missing the point of this ENTIRE discussion. Sock, I suggest quit responding too because at this point, he either doesn't get it and it's not going to take you or I to make him see it, or he knows he's wrong and is trying his hardest to dance around the point.
			I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.
	:*Questions:
	:*What "shock value" are you referring to in regards to images. Explain this instead of just repeating it because NO ONE knows what you mean by it.
	:*Your edit summary "If we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception" What does saying where he was in the caption have anything to do with mentioning other movies to his lead? <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 18:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: This seems to be half content dispute and half behavioral dispute. Content disputes should go to ], but they won't accept a request while it's still discussed somewhere else. In light of that, I think this discussion should be closed, a strongly worded warning should be delivered to PS171 in which is he instructed to respect consensus, and a case should be filed at DRN. Come back here with a ''much'' more concise summary if PS171 continues in his disruption after DRN or an RFC. Few people are likely to wade through this sprawling, ] discussion, and there's not much point in keeping it open when other alternatives are available. ] (]) 01:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: I was only intending for it to be a behavioural dispute, but that didn't exactly work out how I thought. The content dispute was the reason for the behavioural one, so I suppose an overlapping was inevitable. It's definitely way, way too long, and I had the sneaking feeling I had over-detailed it. I agree with everything suggested by NinjaRobotPirate. ] ] 06:44, 9 August 2014 (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.
	User:Corvoe's (or by his new name User:Sock(puppet)?) initial complaint about the image was dealt with quite a while ago, while he only touched the current, I mean real issue here (''the right proportions of movie mentions in the lead''). The issue: User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus are trying to push as many mentions of the comedy Wolf of Wall Street into the lead of the article as they can, while being more moderate with the real milestones like Titanic, Inception, The Departed etc.<br>
	This is with no less than three(!) mentions of this particular comedy. The problem is that this is a drama actor, NOT a comedy actor and movies like Titanic are only mentioned once which to me DOES seem disproportionate representation of the actor's work in the lead.<br>
	I'm asking the dear admins according to them how should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy ''proportionately''. Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy (Wolf of Wall Street)? In this case why on Earth are we mentioning the comedy more times than these movies? I repeatedly argued that if Wolf of W. S. is mentioned once, we could add a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception? How do you see it? Should I cite the profit margins or the number of awards to emphasize the problem or do you too feel it?<br>
	''When somebody stops adding any relevant arguments on the talk page and keeps pushing one specific comedy in the lead of an article about a drama actor, it's difficult to see here "concensus".''<br>
	Besides, I really don't know whether tricks and '''are even allowed to influence''' the decision of the admins at a thread like that, especially from ] here. (Both editors knew about this thread before these repeated notifications!)<br>
	I won't start another investigation on how User:NinjaRobotPirate found his way here... ] (]) 09:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)<br>
	As User:Corvoe's ONLY argument for including the comedy twice was the infobox and the lead being separate entities, today I reverted his edit. '''Infoboxes ARE parts of the lead''' per ]. Another little "misunderstanding" in an edit summary of User:Corvoe...<br>
	I've also started ], but if these two keep pushing the same "talk for the sake of talking" attitude as they do here, I don't know whether it will lead anywhere...<br>
	I'd also remind the administrators of possible ] issues here:<blockquote>The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Misplaced Pages article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does '''not''' apply to biographies.</blockquote> (Bolding mine.) ] (]) 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	== Endless soapboxing on ] is becoming disruptive to collaboration ==
	{{unresolved}}
	We need to use ] to reach a consensus about various changes being made to a large article about a very complex subject with delicate sourcing issues. I believe the article is in the process of being improved. But we have a problem with soapboxing by ]. For years now, Safwan has been using the talk page to post long essays about media bias, religious freedom, and Japanese politics that are ''somewhat'' related to the topic of the article. Safwan does not edit the article, and has not since his rewrite was completely reverted and the article extended at length, around 2013. His only edits in 2014 are to this talk page and to a previous, unresolved ANI discussion about this soapboxing: ].
			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.
	Something needs to be done about this. The talk page is becoming unusable precisely when we need to start using it more. Please take a look for yourself. ] ] 06:22, 7 August 2014 (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.
	:As a contributor to the Talk page, I have to say that I find ]'s soapboxing as annoying as anyone. However, it's not exactly true to say that he doesn't edit the article. are the edit stats for the article, and is a breakdown of his contributions. As you can see, he has contributed 44,881 bytes, far more than anyone else. The problem is that almost all of that material is gone. is the article as it was 1 year ago, and ] is the article as it is today. They are two completely different articles. The article as it exists now has been systematically purged of all material sourced to people or organizations affiliated with the Gakkai, and replaced by material apparently selected to portray the Gakkai in the worst possible light. From comments in the Talk section, the editors in control of the article now seem to be on a mission to portray the organization as a cult, to bring to light incidents that (they contend) it is trying to hide, and to demonstrate that what the organization says about itself is untrue. The result is a highly negative (some might say defamatory) article. Unsurprisingly, people arrive on the Talk page to complain. And when they try to bring some balance back into the article, they are reverted almost immediately, usually on the grounds that the material is sourced to people or organizations affiliated with the Gakkai. I'm no expert in religious studies, but this seems like a strange attitude to me. Would it be possible to write an article about the Catholic or Luthern churches while systematically excluding material written by Catholics and Lutherns? So I would be as happy as anyone if the soapboxing would stop, but I suspect the problem might solve itself if these people were allowed to contribute again. --] (]) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (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.
	::Soapboxing on the Talk page, involving several SPAs, and POV pushing with primary sources in the article go hand in hand. There have been editors, most prominently ], advocating the position that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism, and therefore should have its program/beliefs/etc., represented using primary sources without question. ] and I have gone over that particular issue from various angles, but he continually tries to reintroduce the subject matter.
	::The soapboxing is accompanied by wall of text after wall of text, and that is symptomatic of an ] attitude. The wave-after-wave of soapboxing walls of text has to be brought to an end.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::What is an SPA? And speaking of ] I have patiently explained to both you and ] the difference between a "secondary" source and a "third-party" source. It seems you still don't get it. But thank you for highlighting the issue. Is it justified to enforce a blanket ban on all sources affiliated with the Gakkai? When we want to explain Catholic beliefs, is it unacceptable to cite a Catholic? --] (]) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			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
	::::I presume you are referring to the thread in which you made ? Aside from the fact that you left out the aspect of the relationship between being independently published and having a COI, there are other assertions you make that seem inaccurate. Catflap and I have been editing the article in accordance with the sourcing policy, and the statements from publishers affiliated with SG have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to see if they are validly used or have a promotional dimension that exceeds the provision of information.
	:::::You also said that you thought the "sect" issue was nitpicking, but since you are not well-versed in religious studies. Apparently didn't understand the quote I from the source published by Middleway press in which SG is referred to as a "sect". That source was presented by Daveler16 in an attempt to assert that SG is a sect, which is most definitely is not, and that makes the use of that source for unacceptable because it is a promotional assertion made in a source that is published by a press owned by SG.
	:::::An SPA is a "single purpose account".--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::A case-by-case evaluation would be fine with me. About "sect", which you are making such a huge issue of, have we even established that the word appeared in a book? --] (]) 23:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
	*@admins Part of the reason that Margin1522 is asking content related questions here is because there is an inordinate amount of text on the Talk page due to soapboxing. I'm not going to rehash the issues here, or respond to Margin1522 until they read all of the related discussions; however, this clearly demonstrates the degree to which the soapboxing has become detrimental to content creation.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*:I have to add that I am quite disappointed this has had no outside response so far. ] ] 13:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*::Seeing there is still no discussion here, <s>I am going to<s> unilaterally give Safwan {{tl|Uw-chat4}} and block him if he continues this behavior. ] ] 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*:::{{u|Shii}}, I would recommend you not use you admin rights in an area where you are heavily ]. Doing that would be a good way for you to lose your admin rights quickly. ]&nbsp;] 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	*::::{{u|GB fan}}, in the face of deafening silence on this noticeboard, what else could I possibly do to stop this behavior? ] ] 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	******{{u|GB fan}} If that is the only input you--whom I assume are an admin--are willing to provide here, then Arbcom is on the horizon for this article in the not-too-distant future. AN/I seems to basically be a waste of time and effort.
	::::::Let me just add that, as can be seen below, the soapboxing walls-of-text being posted by the editor that is the subject of this thread and several SPAs is based on ] and ]. Editors engaged in creating content in accordance with policy cannot be expected to repeatedly present the same policy-based arguments to defend the encyclopedia against the a continual flood of non-policy compliant material posted by the same editors or newly minted SPAs, so there is a necessity to have a mechanism that redresses such editing conduct. I can't understand why a single admin hasn't seen it necessary to at least issue a warning to SafwanZabalawi and any of the soapboxing SPAs.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u|Ubikwit}}, That is not the only input that I will give here. I just wanted to get that out before Shii did something they might regret later. Since I have never edited in this area before I am reading through the article, the talk page, the other associated ANI and looking around at the histories. I don't want to jump into the middle of this without knowing the background for myself. The large amount of information that I am seeing might be the reason that no one has done anything up to this point. It might be later today or tomorrow before I can make more of a post as I has some personal business to take care of in an hour or so. ]&nbsp;] 16:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{u|GB fan}} OK, thanks. No doubt it will take some time to go through that material. As long as some one is taking this seriously, I don't think anyone is in a rush.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{u|GB fan}}: Thanks for looking into this, I retract my above threat/whining. ] ] 23:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{collapse|2=Attempt to drag content dispute into ANI thread|1=
	:::I hope this is not soapboxing but much of the argument about primary and secondary sources is based on Ubikwit's injection of ] into the discussion. He insists that only properly identified "sects" can use primary sources. This is a huge problem from a sociological perspective. ] is an entire field in sociology. It has largely replaced nomenclature such as ] or ]. The WP article on ] defines it as "A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group" which is largely descriptive of a NRM. Is it equitable to give one group a different editorial privilege than the second? Please note that if we exclude primary source material to NRMs we also include Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Falun Gong, and hundreds of others (see ].
	:::I believe this discussion about soapboxing is largely attributable to Ubikwit's rigid stance about the editorial privileges of sects. If this matter is clarified by administrators this aspect of the edit-warring would be clarified. The field of the sociology of NRMs is exciting, contested, and emerging. Do WP editors such as Ubikwit really want to be definitive and restrictive on this matter or should the gates remain open while sociologists continue to build consensus?
	:::] (]) 12:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	@ Margin1522 Sorry it might be a long and laborious task to go through the history of the the article. I myself do not edit the article too much – to be honest I can not be bothered most of the time. At one stage there were just a few critical remarks in the article that some adherents of the group contested in a somewhat disruptive, fanatic and schizophrenic manner. Also I do not think Misplaced Pages should be used for the praise of an organisation and its “dear leader”. Doubts on the organisations character are out there – based on secondary sources. I have no probs to describe the organisation, also how it sees itself, but attacks on critical issues, documented by non-affiliated resources, annoy me to put it mildly. I also do severely doubt the mental status of some of the major contributors to the article and to the talk page. --] (]) 14:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here {{redacted}}. I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.
	== Harassment by IP 208.76.111.243 ==
			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.
	I believe the person using ] is editing just to harass me. As of this moment they have 23 edits:
			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)
	*18 on Jimbo Wales user talk page
	*3 on my talk page
	*1 on their own talk page
	*1 at ANI
			: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.
	All but three are to or about me. I believe whomever is using this account is doing so just to hound and harass me.
			:{{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 ]."}}
	--] (]) 23:49, 7 August 2014 (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.
			: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.
	:Would you point out what you think is harassing so it's more clear what the behaviors are. I'm not saying that to say you're wrong in fact I don't plan on stating that at any point here even after posting it but if you want to say they are hounding or harassing you, can you show the part you find objectable. For better or worse many wikipedians are talking about you, and your actions trying to raise awareness via twitter will have good and bad results. ] (]) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits ==
	::The comments started out polite enough, I suppose, though it concerned me that an IP was asking me questions. (I've had this happen before, more than once.) But they got snarkier as time went along. The recent "straw man" and "care to try again" response was obviously meant to goad. But mostly, as I said above, out of a total of 23 edits - 20 are for or about me. ] (]) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			<br>I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			* {{userlinks|TTYDDoopliss}}
			Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?
	:::Ok thanks for being more clear. ] (]) 00:48, 8 August 2014 (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.
	Thank you for the notification. I will have a statement following this shortly, but I would like to initially point out that at no point prior to her filing this complaint has ] expressed any of these concerns to me or anyone else. ] (]) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Meanwhile, ]. She's not required to file her form in triplicate and get it signed by two admins while standing on one foot, chewing gum, and patting her head. Your response indicates you've been here for a very long time. ] (]) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm afraid you're quite incorrect there Viriditas. I have not been here for a very long time. I have, however, been around computers, networks and online communities for a very very long time. I have a feeling you are overestimating how quickly one can become familiar with this community and its processes. After all it's moderately well documented and the markup, while arcane for this day and age of GUIs, is nothing compared to languages and systems I have mastered in the past. Although I will admit that I'm utterly mystified by what to do in the event of edit conflicts beyond reloading the page and pasting my comments. ] (]) 02:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Your contributions from this IP appear only to focus on Lightbreather, not building an encyclopedia. You also seem to be very familiar with how Misplaced Pages works. I think my hypothesis has more merit than yours. ] (]) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Viriditas if I was so familiar with Misplaced Pages then it would stand to reason that I would not be stymied by posting my response due to the edit filter. Even though my response has no language that would be inappropriate in any setting. I'm currently reading up on the false positives and what to do. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 03:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			With her new account, she quickly {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic|diffonly=yes}}, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including:
	Seems like a case of ]. ] 02:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			* This sequence of edits to ]:
	'''Response''' - As I said earlier, prior to this complaint ] has not expressed any of the concerns that she has raised here to me personally. She has engaged me in conversation more than half a dozen times without expressing any concern with me whatsoever.
			** {{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}}
			** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270571663|Edit summary: ''Undid revision 1270571008 by C.Fred (talk) how many more women are going to be hurt by continuing to let men like this in the game industry''|diffonly=yes}}
			* {{Diff|Dawn M. Bennett|prev|1270573048|To Dawn M. Bennett|diffonly=yes}}, removing an image with the edit summary ''she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image''
			* {{Diff|User talk:TTYDDoopliss|prev|1270578539|To her own user talk|diffonly=yes}}, removing a thread that included warnings with the edit summary ''please leave me alone, im trying to lessen my suffering as a woman in a male-dominated world''
			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.
	Given the above, I'm afraid that the only conclusion that I can come to about this report is that it is retaliatory for me pointing out that she is in violation of her ] by acting on a sanction that has been proposed against someone with whom she has battled frequently. As you can see , Lightbreather should be fully aware that her support vote on AN was a violation given that she had explicitly received an exemption previously as well as the fact that the opening sentence on AN is: ''"Sue Rangell, in her dispute with Lightbreather, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist Robert Spitzer to make him appear to be a '''gun control''' advocate rather than an academic researcher."'' (emphasis mine). I believe she implicitly acknowledges this and by all appearances seems to be trying to game the system to in her reply to me on AN when I pointed out that she was currently topic banned in the area in which she was voting.
			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)
	Finally, I find it very interesting that she's actively sending tweets out to the world with her Misplaced Pages account linked as the user but is labeling commentary on the very project and topic she opines upon as harassment.
			: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)
			::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)
			: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)
			::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)
			:::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)
			::::just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] Hrm. So is the inference that you ''willingly and knowingly'' made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —''']''' (]) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{tq|benefit of the doubt}}{{snd}}Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? ]] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Surprised they weren't blocked after the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::that’s… not an insult? just an observation ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL ] (]) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over ], it’s easier and takes less time. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is ''not'' what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm suspecting trolling, here. ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for ] violations. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information ''about the exploitation caused by the games industry'' - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make ''women working in the games industry literally less visible,'' seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tq|I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body}} Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay.]] 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks.]] 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::clearly you’ve never had a ], or ]. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You've already been told by {{U|Liz}}, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked.]] 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*], I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed.
			:And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like ] but for women? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm looking at edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --] (]) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There's which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. ] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::What we would expect is to find ] compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in ] in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. ] (]) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::OK. Now I'm looking at edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. ] (]) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|I removed it because it made me upset.}} What? Have you read ] and ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just ], a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::fine ill shut up now ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: also looks like parody. ] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the ''male'' protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. ] (]) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::No one said or implied any such thing. ] (]) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: actually takes a ] cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::: is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners."
			:::::::However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Because you have disrupted multiple topics. ] (]) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. ] (]) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::what can I do to make you guys believe me? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That ship has sailed. ] (]) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			I've gone ahead and blocked them. It's clear we're being trolled. They're not only offensively characterising men, they're offensively characterising women and people with mental illnesses. Thay also can't keep their own lies and beliefs straight. We're done here. ] ] 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Indefinite block ===
			For disruptive editing and ]. I propose that TTYDDoopliss be indefintely blocked. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Per nom. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. In addition, ] and ]. - ] ] 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' For the reasons and multitudinous diffs cited above I believe this whole dog and pony show is a troll. ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per above. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, and some of us are bound to be male. If you can't work collaboratively, you can't work at all. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just ], their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per nom ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - I believe we're being trolled. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nom. Good block by CT.]] 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support:''' TTYDDoopliss asked, several times over, what she could do to avoid a general block. Over and over again, she refused to respond in the one way that would have helped her: by saying that she'd clean up her act and stop dumping her own issues onto this site. Even if we weren't being trolled, any time an ] person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. ] 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ]: ] and ] behaviour. ==
	Nonetheless, If she does not want me to interact with her all she need do is ask. I'm a reasonable person and will take this as that request and stop when this is closed. However, I do request that that my concern above is given some administrative attention. ] (]) 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:In other words, you're an experienced Wikipedian, familiar with arcane and complex processes like arbcom, using an IP account for the singular purpose of attempting to bait and harass Lightbreather. Got it. Any reason you shouldn't be blocked? ] (]) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::If reading Misplaced Pages for years makes me experienced then so be it, but I didn't start editing until I saw the posts about 'civility' (and went back to the history) on Jimmy Wales' page last week or the week before. I began commenting in the discussion because I think that heavy handed enforcement of something as ill-defined as civility could be harmful for this project that has brought me countless hours of fascination. I believe that I've engaged in the conversation politely and I hope that I've made some thoughtful points. I've also read some very thoughtful points from both sides of the aisle.
			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.
	::And again I find this curious in that you are now coaching Lightbreather on her talk page on how to invite more discussion on the topic with inflammatory tweets that link directly back to Misplaced Pages.
	::Finally, calling arbcom arcane is laughable in that it was on either ] or ] and I've read several cases with interest since then. I also find it curious how aggressive and uncivil you're being towards me and I'll ask you nicely to tone it down please. Thank you. ] (]) 05:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Arbcom is most certainly best described as arcane, and there is nothing laughable about using that term at all -- unless of course you are a regular using a dedicated IP to attack Lightbreather. "New users" don't make edits like . I don't see anything aggressive or uncivil about what I've written here, and I think I've politely informed you that I don't believe your story. Using an IP solely dedicated to baiting and attacking an editor isn't acceptable, and you must stop doing it. If you want to edit the encyclopedia, start an article, or contribute in some way that has nothing to do with Lightbreather, then fine, but I think if you continue talking about Lightbreather and following her around after she has told you to stop, then you should be blocked. In other words, don't talk about Lightbreather from here on out. Got it? ] (]) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I think this is inappropriate. An interaction ban is a remedy that merits community scrutiny; you certainly don't get to impose one all by yourself. ] 05:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I think it is entirely appropriate, Mr. New Registered Account within the last 24 hours. It's called common sense. ] (]) 06:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::]? I disagree entirely, and I'm troubled at the appearance of presuming to circumvent policy. If your suggestion is so appropriate, it should be easy to build a consensus around it, yah? ] 06:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::THe IP's concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if they haven't been already. But, yeah, they're obviously not new to Misplaced Pages and in the current climate I'd say it is almost certainly someone who is logged-out rather than someone who has been editing for ages without an account. That said, ] etc? - ] (]) 05:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't see any "legitimate" concerns to address. Lightbreather has asked the IP to leave her alone, and the IP's entire contribution history shows that they are only here to harass her. End of story. ] (]) 05:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::The more I go over this IP's contribs, the more I think ] might apply. Specifically: ''Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy.'' Based on the editing history here, I see an IP editing while logged out strictly to harass {{u|Lightbreather}}. 0 edits to article space, all but 3 have been on talk pages or noticeboards directly responding to the petitioning user. Although ] is not a policy, it clearly applies here as others have pointed out. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 05:46, 8 August 2014 (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)
	::::Viriditas, the alleged topic ban breach? - ] (]) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	::::Glad you mentioned WP:sock, {{u|Solarra}}. I went to ] first because this IP user's writing style reminds me of some other WP editors I've conversed with in the past, but I couldn't put my finger on who exactly, so I chose this board instead. ] (]) 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	:::::{{reply|Sitush}} What the IP is alleging is that is violating Lightbreather's TBAN on Gun Control. I'm still doing my research on whether or not the act of reporting someone in a topic area of a TBAN (in this case gun control) in and of itself violates that TBAN. Early indications are yes but I'm trying to find a definitive policy. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Yeah, and that's why it is a legitimate concern. - ] (])&redirect=no 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::{{reply|Solarra}} actually my concern is with Lightbreather's vote at the Administrators noticeboard titled "Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material". I would post a diff but the edit filter is flagging them as ASCII art for some reason. Thank you ] (]) 06:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Rather than a "legitimate concern", it seems like stalking and harassment. Should I expect a reply from the newly registered account or the IP? Please pick one. And at what point will your account be working on the encyclopedia instead of on Lightbreather? ] (]) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	<br/>
	{{out}} OK, I've done the research. Lightbreather was originally from Gun Control due to the ] filed at ARBCOM enforcement and an ongoing edit dispute in the ARBCOM sanctioned area involving multiple editors. The edits on the AE request linked above were specifically allowed by the admin applying the TBAN. {{u|Lightbreather}}'s !vote is in ''direct'' violation of her TBAN on Gun Control per ]. I have to recommend that the closing admin here take a close look at the TBAN violation brought up by the IP.
	<br/>
	That being said, my arguments above and the original concerns of Lightbreather are valid, the IP is clearly editing in a manner to harass her and the editing while logged out is highly suspect. {{u|Viriditas}} is absolutely right, the IP is clearly ]. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 06:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Thank you Solara, As I said above, now that it's clear that my participation is uncomfortable for Lightbreather I will stop commenting about her, or to her, going forward unless I need to clarify something in this one single area on ANI which appears unlikely. Good night all. ] (]) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	There are legitimate uses for using ips/alternate accounts but avoiding scrutiny is explicitly disallowed. Using an IP to work on getting someone in trouble qualifies. If the single purpose nature of this account continues I will consider your IP to be evasion of scrutiny. Log into the account that you clearly have if you want to vent your opinion on these issues.
			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.
	If there is an issue with LB then it can be looked into separately. ] 06:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
	:I'd like to point out (without commenting on the threads justification or finding) ] can not unilaterally issue restrictions to any editor and IP 206 should feel free to ignore their instructions. IBans are usually decided by community process. ] (]) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::@Hell in a Bucket, that hasn't stopped him in the past so don't expect that to happen in the future. --] (]) 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	I have blocked this IP per ] which says: '''Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account''', and ] to boot(and ] and ] and ] if more is needed). It is obvious this is an experienced Wikipedian.
			'''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Any admin is welcome to alter or reverse this block. However please read my block summary and my comments on the talk page before considering this. Also please ping me if you are unblocking or considering an unblock request.
			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 have used the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option since this person claims to not have an account. I don't believe it for a second and since blocks are against the person and not the account/ip I felt it appropriate.
			: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 doubt the individual will seek an unblock request from their account when they encounter the auto-block, they will wait it out to avoid scrutiny. ] 06:30, 9 August 2014 (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.
	:That seems rather problematic. Did the IP in question do something in particular between your 8 August threat ("If the single purpose nature of your account..." and your 9 August block? Did you engage ] to establish whether ] is actually a sock before blocking under ], or is that just your assumption? Not all experienced Misplaced Pages editors have accounts, y'know. ] 11:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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)
	Given that the most recent edits from the IP promises to I am willing to reverse this block.
			*: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 ().
	Experienced editors have a history, if he used another IP in the past then he could show us that history. I don't go to ] for quacking feathered water based animals to check if they are a duck, and checkusers cannot prove someone is not a sock puppet. This person is clearly using an IP to avoid scrutiny, that much is obvious.
			: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)
	This user is hiding their history. Either they have an account with more edits or they have ip(s) with more edits. Either way we are being denied that history and I have to judge them based on that I see in their current contribution history. Regardless of the harassment and the singular purpose of this IP's edits they have ].
			:{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}}
	In hindsight I should have blocked on the 8th instead of the warning I gave, but since I have given the warning I will reverse the block and watch this IP closely. ] 18:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			:It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have unblocked this IP due to concerns here. We will see what it results in. ] 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Oh, also welcome to Misplaced Pages {{u|Betafive}}. I see you just joined up on ]. I see you are improving the encyclopedia, thank you. Not sure how you found your way here after 2 days but thanks for your opinion. ] 18:18, 9 August 2014 (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)
	:Hiya! I've actually been around for almost a decade now, editing as whatever dynamic IP address my ISPs have chosen to assign me, although not so much in the last few months-- IPs are treated pretty poorly around here, and it's been getting worse as time goes on. I actually preferred editing as an IP once upon a time, but the incessant demands I produce a detailed list of previous IP addresses I've been assigned, along with a fairly pervasive attitude that IPs need not be afforded the assumption of good faith, got to be too much. While I do understand your desire to see the IPs edit history, his/her failure to have provided you with such a list not necessarily evasive: personally, I avoided keeping track, and regardless, I'm not aware of any policy saying that IP users who appear to be experienced need to provide a detailed edit history on-demand. Anyway, I'm glad you reversed that block, and thanks for the welcome! ] 19:10, 9 August 2014 (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?
	:You've been editing for a decade as an IP and only now decided to register an account? Please forgive me if I don't believe you. I've been reading your contributions and you have as much knowledge about Misplaced Pages as an admin. I think it is much more likely that this is your alternative account or you are evading a block or a ban on another account. ] (]) 00:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			::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)
	Ya, there is a lot of that going around right now. Seems to be way more experienced brand new accounts and IPs joining heated discussion than there was two weeks ago. I will assume good faith as long as it is reasonable to do so. I am not demanding an edit history, I am judging the user based on the edit history they have chosen to show us. ] 19:20, 9 August 2014 (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)
	::New Commentor: May I point out I do not believe Viridtas comments were civil and I do not believe you are assuming good faith and quite frankly appear paranoid. You are rude to IP's and question their intentions. I have edited since 2005 myself and my IP changes from time to time. And may I point out I will never join this "community" as a registered editor because of such snarky commentary. I stay out of disfunctional groups. If editors had to show their real identity instead of hiding behind some imaginary wiki persona I may consider joining. No need to join an Alice in Wonderland imaginary group. There are many of us independent thinkers out there who see no need to join despite much coercion to do so. ] (]) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (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)
			== Repeated WP:GS/AA violations ==
	== User VictoriaGrayson and others on page Dorje Shugden Controversy ==
			On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
	There has been consistent attacking and intransigent editing going on on the page ] and other related pages (] ] ] ], but primarily on the first two. It has been done by a variety of users, particularly {{yo|Heicth}} (who had a username TiredofShugden previously and has done nothing but edit this page for months) {{yo|Kt66}} (Who is a documented fanatic regarding this issue..I can give evidence regarding him via email if needed, as it reveals personal details about their involvement. Things are on the talk page of the past though https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_2) {{yo|VictoriaGrayson}}, and to a lesser extent {{yo|CFynn}} (who has been involved in this debate publicly online and spent hundreds of hours engaging in this for over 20 years.. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/$20Chris$20Fynn ). Just to focus on VictoriaGrayson here, he or she constantly deletes and removes reasonable editions in an attempt to make the article NPOV. They have been already reported by user {{yo|John_Carter}} about a month ago. In https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dougweller/Archive_33#When_to_pull_the_trigger with a very reasonable explanation.
			Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
	In addition there are constant accusations of not using RS or deleting RS, without any substantial discussion or evidence. Lately, on July 27, 28th and a little bit 29th ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dorje_Shugden_controversy&offset=&limit=250&action=history ), There were around 150 edits made on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. Particularly, the article was entirely deleted and changed into a version that VictoriaGrayson favors/created, with only negative aspects of the controversy, leaving out any positive angle or relevant points of view, and including inflammatory accusations, like people's opinion that practitioners of Dorje Shugden are members of a cult and so on. I have managed to bring back some of the deleted material, but its very challenging from the force of these different editors. Then, when there is attempt to change some of this, there are additional accusations of misconduct and reversion.
			*
	At first, I thought the article was improved, but it seems a clear example of POV pushing, which has been consistently going on for 5 months now on this page. There are two pages of archived material since February alone. Any help please? ] (]) 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			*
	:{{yo|Prasangika37}}I did recently make a number of edits to the ] article - but if you check I think you will find these were to improve references and citations, not to substantially change anything that was in the body of the article. After notification I did merge some small related articles that lacked notability by themselves into the ] article and also made a few changes to the ] article - but I see no complaints about those edits in comments on the talk pages of those articles. I'm not sure what relevance things I posted on Usenet 20 years ago has to Misplaced Pages, but as I recall most of the discussion there at that time was reasonably polite and civilised. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso himself responded to some of my questions there at that time. I do think the Dorje Shugden / Dorje Shugden controversy articles can be improved by fairly summarising the views of various Shugden worshipers - but I think this can be done using solid third party sources without much need of quoting primary sources. ] (]) 12:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	Prasangika37, a ] follower, has a problem with every reliable source out there. I am not aware of a single reliable source that he ''does'' agree with, except a self-published book by his own teacher called "Heart Jewel" and an interview of his teacher published in a magazine. A completely neutral top editor, ], has been editing the page recently thus angering Prasangika37. Its interesting that Prasangika37 fails to mention Joshua Jonathan, yet mentions editors who haven't edited in months. CFynn's of the 2 Dorje Shugden pages seems to have further angered Prasangika37. Lastly, there are a couple of IP's from the UK, home of the NKT, which are pushing Prasangika37's edits. ] (]) 16:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			*
	*'''Comment''': I've lurked about this article for quite some time and must note that the organization is a cult, yet the lead does not state this, probably due to the POV-pushing issues that VictoriaGrayson and CFynn are attempting to address. I have no comment as to Prasangika37's motives, but it is clear to me that the other two editors are trying to adhere to NPOV and not whitewash this organization. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	'''Comment by JJ:''' I think you should provide diffs to make clear what your problems witht he changes are. The 150 edits were mine; I've already explained to you that these were mainly a re-ordering of the article. Kelsang Gyatso's opinions should be included too, for which the interview can also be used, to my opinion, but Kay is also a good source. ] -] 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I have no issue with JoshuaJonathan, as he or she seems to be a pretty neutral editor, hence why I did not mention them. What I do have an issue with is completely deleting the old article and replacing it with a new article, all the while deleting any favorable views of Dorje Shugden and exclusively including only negative points of view. All doing this along with a flurry of other edits in a seemingly coordinated manner is an object of concern, no? If I deleted the whole article and replaced it with my own version, what would you say? Surely there would be calls for investigation into my behavior. ] (]) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales ==
			::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)
			== Caribbean Hindustani ==
	Can someone block Tarc and Smallbones for continuing their edit warring at ]. They've both been taken to AN3 and it looks like they were told to come here, but they're still going at it hammer and tongs. 24 hours' peace and quiet wouldn't go amiss, and this has been going on for ages. Will try to inform but my mobile data allowance is getting low. - ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			*{{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)
	:Shrug. I do not feel it is right to harass and intimidate an editor for being a sock (whether it is or not is still an open question, as the SPI is ongoing). Being a sock isn't like being a pedophile or a rapist, or some nasty person that White Knights like Smallbones think they have to take a bullet for Jimbo for. As I pointed out several times, Jimbo himself ] engaged with this user a week ago. This has been plain and petty harassment on Smallbones' part, and it should not be tolerated, revert rules be damned if the project is ] by this individual. ] (]) 16:24, 8 August 2014 (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)
	::And you were white knighting for an account that is a ban-evading sock at worst, and a scrutiny-evading sock at best. I don't view IAR as a valid defence here. Both of you should be blocked if something like that happens again in the future. ]] 17:08, 8 August 2014 (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)
	:::Not quite; the difference is that I do not care ''who'' it is that is being wronged, I'd do the same regardless. Even {{u|Grundle2600}} who has been a pain in my tookus for years now should still be treated like a person, and I still let him post to my talk page if he wants. Try thinking about that for a moment, bro; not treating one's enemies as dirt. It's heavy-handedness like Smallbones' actions that do much to stoke the rancor among the project's critics. Try acting a bit less like ], you might see better results. ] (]) 17:15, 8 August 2014 (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)
	::::Edits by banned users are subject to deletion on sight, regardless of their alleged quality. However, it's not appropriate to nanny someone else's talk page. If Jimbo himself wants to remove the comments of a banned editor, ''or any editor'', from his talk page then he's free to do so. In short, you've mostly got it right. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:18, 8 August 2014 (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)
			== Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8) ==
	::::I don't find your rationale any more valid than your IAR claim. That was a juvenile and disruptive edit war on both your parts. The only reason it was allowed to go on as long as it did was that nobody wanted to block either of you. That was a mistake on the community's part. ]] 22:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocks guaranteed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			The IP ] was banned on December 29, 2024 (6 month block duration) for disruptive editing. To be specific, they would write in a delay of a Starship launch by exactly one month, without any citations.
			They had been banned before (two month ban) for the same behaviour.
	* I've archived the section completely since the only discussion occurring was about the edit-war itself. I really hope that this doesn't continue in the archive or on further postings by this editor (until the SPI etc. is resolved). ] 16:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			A few examples that I sourced in my :
	It is embarrassing when people edit war on such a high profile page. I suggest edit war blocks to be liberally handed out for anyone edit warring on that page in the future, regardless of who the editor is or what their standing is. Short blocks for those with no history of edit warring, longer ones for people with such a history. ] 17:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Smallbones appears to be acting in good faith, but he needs to stop it. It's up to a user to manage their own talk page. However, and assuming the evidence of ban evasion is clear, removing a banned editor's work from other pages is definitely appropriate. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*Jimbo invites socks to use his user talk page to discuss issues with him. We have historically looked the other direction for most socks when they arn't throwing out a bunch of personal attacks. Smallbones should leave Jimbo's page to Jimbo. Tarc, on the other hand, should find some other worthy cause to champion - this isn't it and it isn't worth the block. @Tarc: Save your effort for a case with more merit.--v/r - ]] 17:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			IP ] is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion.
	I have no problem with the above (now implemented) solution of archiving the whole mess.
	I was wondering when somebody was actually going to accuse me of something rather than just screaming nonsense about ]. Sitush should definitely not accuse me of 3RR however. I'll just repeat the appropriate rules and a few of my responses to previous nonsense (most of this was on my talk page):
			Out of the five edits made by this IP:
	'''Edits by and on behalf of banned editors '''
			Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source.
	Anyone is free to ] any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and ]. (from ])
			Delays ] on ] from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added.
	:I'll give you the basic run-down on why I know that User:SpottingTOU is a banned editor. First he has essentially admitted it twice in the last week. Nobody has bothered to deny that he is the banned user. He is User:Thekohser, aka "Mr. 2001" after his many sockpuppets starting with that address. He was banned about 7 years ago for inserting ads into Misplaced Pages, and likely has been banned many times since for sockpuppetting. He simply scorns all of Misplaced Pages's rules. As he writes on his paid editing business:
			Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
	"Despite a superficial "permanent ban" from Misplaced Pages, (his business) and its affiliates (all under signed non-disclosure agreements) have researched, written, and published on Misplaced Pages numerous paid articles, from 2007 to the present day. The vindictive administrators on Misplaced Pages think they have the power to control free content, but in practice they have nothing of the sort. By using sockpuppet editor accounts that are dedicated to only one client before being phased out, and by using cycled IP addresses, public Wi-Fi hotspots, and mobile Internet connections, Misplaced Pages articles can be written and published in exchange for payment, without retribution -- even despite a community "advisory" against editing Misplaced Pages in this fashion. It can be done, folks. "
			Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added.
	:I became very much acquainted with his style of writing about January 2014, during discussions of the paid editing problem on Jimbo's talk page. His typical speil goes something like this.
			Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
	"Jimbo, what do you think of the following general statement?"
	If he gets a reply (from anybody if Jimbo doesn't answer), he'll then pull out some mangled "facts" on a specific issue related to paid editing, launch into a tirade, and then declare that Jimbo is a hypocrite. After the 10th time you've seen it it becomes terribly obvious, and I've seen it dozens of times now. It really destroys the ability of anybody on that page to carry on a reasonable discussion. Notice that he starts by lying about his identity and hiding his true intentions. Definitely not a good faith editor - which is why he has been banned.
			This is either a similarly disruptive editor, or more likely, a ban evader continuing their vandalism. Either way, they are ]. ] (]) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:So I just started removing his edits in late January or February according to the banning policy cited above. I announced this at the start that I would be removing all his edits - they are simple enough to identify - unless Jimbo asked me to stop. Jimbo is very much aware of this and has never asked me to stop. Tarc has been asking Jimbo for several days now whether it's ok for me to remove these, and Jimbo has studiously avoided any comment. I believe he works this way so that TheKhoser doesn't get ammunition to go running around yelling "Jimbo is muzzling my free-speech." If Jimbo requests I will definitely stop, but as reverting known banned editors is written into the rules, and Jimbo doesn't seem to mind, I don't think it is up to anybody on this page to tell me to stop.
			:Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban.
	:BTW, I am not in anyway protecting Jimbo on this. TheKhoser makes it impossible for me or anybody else who disagrees with him to have a reasonable discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I'm protecting myself. TheKhoser also attempts to make me mad, e.g. by putting his garbage on my talkpage, despite being told not to, and by inventing outrageous lies about me in attempts to out me. I do try to control that anger, but if he asks for it, he shouldn't be complaining when he gets it.
			:
			: ] (]) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks for putting together such an easy to follow report. I've blocked them for the same length of time as their original IP account. If this becomes a habit, it might be easier to semi-protect certain articles temporarily. You probably know where to go to request that action to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. ] (]) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] ] (]) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks! ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (added after discussion close)
			{{abot}}
			== Danny5784 ==
	:At one point, TheKhoser got so mad at my reversions he complained about it at ANI; and got laughed off the page. I don't remove every one of his edits at Jimbo's talk page, simply because I don't always see them before others answer.
			{{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)
	]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 18:46, 8 August 2014 (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)
	:I didn't accuse anyone of "3RR". I took no sides and said that you and Tarc were edit warring. You were. - ] (]) 18:57, 8 August 2014 (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 ==
	::Rather than nannying another user's talk page, Smallbones should ''inform'' the user that so-and-so is probably a sock of a banned user, and then let the user manage his own talk page as he sees fit. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:::That might work for another banned editor but I don't think it would work very well for this one. I take ] to leave that choice up to me. "Anyone is free to ] '''any edits''' made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason." Of course I take that "without giving any further reason" with a grain of salt when asked questions by esteemed admins.
	:::Jimbo watches his talkpage fairly closely, and in at least one totally unrelated case has not been shy about telling me he disagrees with me. My reverting TheKhoser has gone on now about 6 months, and I've reverted him roughly 30 times, always with an appropriate edit summary, and Jimbo has not objected yet. In one case TheKhoser made an accusation that actually seemed to make a little sense, and I asked Jimbo about it. As I remember the answer was something like, "make sure to improve the encyclopedia first, then do whatever you think best."
	:::For some reason the WO folks were really set on getting TheKhoser's words on Jimbo's talkpage this week (maybe because he wanted to make a splash for Wikimania, maybe he just needs some more free advertising for his business). But in any case the solution for massive attempts to push a banned editors bologna onto Jimbo's page is for admins to revert them, or let "any user" revert them, or to block them for 3RR, or just let Jimbo decide. There's nothing secret going on here - with never any objection from the user. I will also remind you that I do this in order that I can engage in a reasonable discussion on that page without somebody turning it into a farce.
	:::So I'll ask you to follow your own advice " let the user manage his own talk page as he sees fit." ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Who are you talking to? I am very ''un''-inclined to mess with the contents of other users' talk pages. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Some advice to anyone using one of the exemptions to 3RR: Explain and link to the exemption in the edit summary so that there is not a misunderstanding resulting in a 3RR block.
			::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 ==
	Examples: "'''rv, banned user - ]'''" or "'''rv, vandalism - ]'''" or "'''rv, copyvio - ]'''".
			{{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}}
			This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.!
	This will prevent a lot of misunderstandings when these things are not obvious. ] 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			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 ] ,
	* Whatever the rights and wrongs I asked both Smallbones and Tarc to stop when between them their reverts had reached 19 out of the 50 most recents edits to the page . Each of them refused to drop the stick on the grounds that they, and they alone, were right -- and then proceeded to revert a total of another 16 times after that. That looks like disruptive behaviour of the part of each of them to me. If the original comment was indeed from a banned user, he is presumably laughing his head off at having found such a simple and easy way of disrupting Misplaced Pages by proxy and with minimal effort, and presumably will repeat the trick as often as he is allowed to get away with it. May I suggest that in future, if Smallbones is convinced in all good faith that an edit is by a banned user, he revert it once, explain his reasoning and leave it to others to revert it again if reinstated; and that if Tarc is convinced that a valuable addition has been lost to Misplaced Pages by a mistaken revert, he repeat the comment in his own name, taking personal responsibility for its validity or value to the discussion, thereby protecting it from subsequent removal. ] (]) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			While i was trying to improve the ] article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per
	*The banned user has found a weakness in Misplaced Pages—he can repeatedly post feeble "gotcha!" posts while easily evading technical sock detection. Using Jimbo's talk means the banned user wins whatever the outcome—if anyone engages by pointing out the complaint relates to events in the distant past or whatever, the troll is successful as Jimbo knows he is being needled by an obsessive opponent that Jimbo upset more than seven years ago. If Jimbo were to intervene, the troll wins again because he can boast on his attack website that Jimbo is running away from criticism, and the troll may be successful in getting naive media outlets to report that Jimbo performs {{smallcaps|censorship}}. The solution is simple—the community should apply ] and remove future posts. If the banned user ever finds an issue that warrants attention, they can post it on their website where a hundred people will notice it and raise it here if needed. ] (]) 00:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			] where it is clearly mentioned
	*Uhh.. I agree with Tom and Bugs here. Although as I watched this on Jimbo's page and the SPI, I have to just shake my head at such stubbornness over absolutely nothing. I would be the first to back up a ] revert if the comment wasn't on someones user page, but.... ] (]) 01:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	**It might be that Jimbo has decided that his best response is to say and do as little as possible, which is one way to deny recognition. But it might be good for someone who's cozy with Jimbo to send him an e-mail and get his opinion on what, if anything, should be done with such posts. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	***Jimbo is a lot more lax on ] than most editors. He reinstated an edit by a Grundle sock on the ], that I reverted because...]. He insisted on the edit being part of the article and stated he was taking responsibility for the edit. I still disagree with him, and believe if he thought the content was needed in the article he should have reworded so to deny the sock from having their edit placed in the article. But what :<blockquote>if Smallbones is convinced in all good faith that an edit is by a banned user, he revert it once, explain his reasoning and leave it to others to revert it again if reinstated; and that if Tarc is convinced that a valuable addition has been lost to Misplaced Pages by a mistaken revert, he repeat the comment in his own name, taking personal responsibility for its validity or value to the discussion, thereby protecting it from subsequent removal.</blockquote> is probably exactly right. Policy-wise and for future reference. ] (]) 02:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	****No, it's not right. I explained above that Jimbo cannot get involved because anything he does will only encourage further abuse. Smallbones explained above that Jimbo is quite capable of restoring anything he wants restored, and Jimbo has demonstrated a willingness to post on a user's talk page with a request/statement if he thinks it warranted, so he could tell Smallbones to knock it off if wanted. A complicating factor is that a bunch of Wikipediocracy fans should not exercise their rights by restoring pointless needling. ] (]) 03:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	*****Yes it is quite right, and perhaps is what I will do in the future. The point here is that Jimbo Wales is a grown man, and doesn't need the people who can do nothing but bleat "RULES RULES RULES!" guard him from benign comments of other grown men. There was nothing inherently wrong with the comment itself, only with (allegedly) ''who'' made it. When you start rejecting speech based on no other criteria than the source, that's just a path straight to ignorance. ] (]) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	****I see a lot of comments here about what they think Jimbo thinks. Has anyone actually ''asked him?'' ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	*****, but did not receive a response. ] (]) 22:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	******If the theories of some of the folks here are correct, he might not want to talk about it openly. Maybe you or someone could try an e-mail? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			"''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.''"
	== Vinod Gupta School of Management etc. ==
			Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
	{{Userlinks|DebnathSourav}} is the latest username who, immediately after creation, a chunk of advertising on ]. This chunk was almost a complete copyvio per . This is the third time (after {{Userlinks|Madhavparashar}} 9 days ago and {{Userlinks|Meethv}} 2 months before that) in recent history that a new account has been created and immediately tried to add promotional material to the article. I initially reported to AIV because it seemed obvious to me, but ] it should be brought here.<P>All three accounts should be blocked as ]/]s. As far as the target page, other users seem to think it should remain as a stub because the school may actually be notable. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	*For the record, I stubbed this blatantly promotional article a while back and I have reverted several attempts to add promotional material. It was, and remains, completely unsourced. Only the idiotic blank check notability enjoyed by High Schools and colleges stops me from sending it to AfD. -] (]) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:* Actually, it doesn't appear to be an independent school or college, merely a faculty of ]. On that basis you could simply redirect it there. ] 21:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|Black Kite}} Is there a reason not to block these three users? <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	== CensoredScribe is back ==
			:Hello, ],
	This time as {{user|Allen7054}}. I filed a ] three days ago, but there hasn't been any action on it. In fact, ] seems to be severely backlogged. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 04:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			: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)
	:I also filed a ban proposal at AN ]. ] (] - ]) 04:41, 9 August 2014 (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 reverted the most recent edits. Unsurprisingly, he was adding categories inappropriately. I'm not sure why, but he added dozens of video games to ] when they were already in the appropriate subcategory. Maybe he wanted to create a master list of all dystopian fiction? ] (]) 05:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::CensoredScribe's MO was making new categories and adding them to pages where they were not even proper identifications of the subject because it was just like one instance in 500 episodes or issues that the category item came up, though. Are you sure it's him?—] (]) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: He also added many existing categories inappropriately to fictional character articles. See the SPI case for details. CS would add a wildly inappropriate category, then use the edit summary to support his original research when he got reverted. This account does the same exact thing. They both edit the same general articles: Superman, Batman, and assorted DC superheroes. This one shows more of an obsession with video games, but it's still not outside of CS's MO. There is {{diff|Fallout: New Vegas|prev|600376984|precedent}}. ] (]) 20:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: The pattern is the exact same. Mass additions of fiction categories to multiple articles with little to no bases on reliable sources and edit warring on multiple articles to keep his/her category changes in place. (]) (]) (]) —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 04:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)		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)
	:Allen7054 is still continuing to edit war on the above articles. When will there be a block issued? Also, ] has appeared making the same edits. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 03:55, 11 August 2014 (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 ] ==
	== 139.190.199.244 Edit warring, disruptive editing, COI? ==
			{{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}}
			== Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn ==
	{{Userlinks|139.190.199.244}}<br>
			{{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	'Promotes' actor ] as first billed on Indian films over other actors who are first billed in refs. Quickly restarted with Shah Rukh Khan promotions after expiration of block for this reason. Has not replied to my query or comments on their talk page. COI?<br>
			*{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}}
	] ] ] ] ] ] ] and about 20 others. ] (]) 08:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			], 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 ]?
	:Sitting out the block quietly and then immediately resuming the same rapid-fire disruption looks pretty bad. I've placed a two-week block. Feel free to revert their remaining top edits if you can face it, Jim. Maybe somebody would like to help? ] &#124; ] 13:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC).
	::They are all done now. -- ] (]) 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	== Blocked user admits on Japanese Misplaced Pages to engaging in sockpuppetry here ==
			: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) ==
	{{User|Hijiri88}} here. I'm on a bus with an even more unstable connection than my phone, so I'm logged out to avoid my edit getting accidentally cancelled. {{User|Juzumaru}} was blocked a little over a month ago for persistent attacks against me, and after being blocked here he started using his ] to continue attacking me. He was recently by an admin there to cut it out, and politely accepted the warning, but a little bit before this he made an : "すでに気づかれているかもしれませんが、私は英語版Misplaced Pagesにすでに別アカウントを作成し、編集活動も行っています" translates to "You may have already noticed, but I have already made a new account on English Misplaced Pages and am engaged in editing". I actually hadn't already noticed, but this statement is concerning. I checked the recent edit histories of some of his favourite articles, but his sockpuppet doesn't appear to have shown up there yet. This makes it somewhat difficult to start a sockpuppet investigation. Any ideas about what the procedure in this situation is? I don't suppose we can get a CU even with an open admission to block-evasion... ] (]) 09:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Input requested from DoRD, who's a checkuser; I expect that he'll be able to offer an opinion beyond a simple "we can do a CU" or "we can't do a CU". Since this guy says at ja:wp that he has created an en:wp sock, I'm left wondering whether CU can do a cross-wiki check, i.e. "This IP operated on ja:wp and on en:wp on this day". Probably not, but that's part of the reason I asked DoRD's input. ] (]) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::While the diff above () doesn't link to the exact phrase in the quotation, it did leave me with enough suspicion to go ahead and run a check. Unfortunately, CheckUser didn't turn up any account that looked like a sockpuppet. As for a cross-wiki check, there isn't much I can do at this point - if I ''had'' found evidence of abuse, I could have shared my information with jawiki CUs for confirmation. ​—] (])​ 16:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].
	== CIR problem ==
			The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
	{{Userlinks|Pawan Bariaar}} continues to post poorly-written descriptions (e.g. , , , ) of individual player's contributions to individual cricket matches, despite being repeatedly, nicely advised, then warned of the problems with their edits, and then a 48-hour block.
	They've never engaged via their talk page or any other place and refuse to use edit summaries or citations, but that could easily be related to their poor English (the edits could easily be the result of poor translation from a language which does not have verb tenses, articles, etc.).
	I don't know whether the stats and prose they are adding are even appropriate&nbsp;– it seems rather trivial to describe a player's stats in individual matches that are not unusual or record accomplishments in the sport overall. Additionally, there is the question of how much of this needs to be cited, if it is to be included.
			] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Regardless, the requirement to have someone clean up behind them on almost every edit (on 34 pages and counting) seems unreasonable. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 09:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			:EDIT: The IP is now <s>banned</s> blocked, with the original IP's <s>ban</s> block extended by another three months. ] (]) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yes, it does, and I agree it looks like a ] issue. The things ] blocked the user for previously, "No edit summaries, failure to follow the MOS or address talk-page concerns", continue unabated. I've given them a week off, and I'm afraid I can see this escalating pretty soon to an indefinite block. ] &#124; ] 12:59, 9 August 2014 (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)
	== Extreme personal attack ==		== Harassment and personal attacks ==
	I can't see that there's any justification for . Perhaps a block is in order for this editor. ] (]) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (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)
			: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 ====
	: :/ Sooner or later, some admin is going to have to take one of these c-word droppers and make an example of them, i.e. in the 1-2 week block range. This is getting out of hand. ] (]) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (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 ====
	::More vicious attacks in a tirade left on my talk page: . ] (]) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (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)
			== Anonymous8206 ==
	FWIW see the OP's record at ] ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}}
			Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: .
			They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	: While I'm not going to attempt to justify that edit summary, if you're the same person as then you are hardly in a position to criticize. See the IPs listed at ] for plenty of other examples. &mdash;] (]) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (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==
	::Hmm, so if you think I might be someone who you don't like, it's ok to call me a cunt? ] (]) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (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}}
	:::Here he goes again: ] (]) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			::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.
	::::If you would ''create an account'' & stick with it, tensions might drop. ] (]) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::So it's ok to call someone a cunt if they don't have an account? ] (]) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::They're picking on me, I'm only a little IP. Give that whiny record a rest. Listen if you don't wish to be referred to as a dopey fucking cunt, treat people with respect and it'll be reciprocated. Otherwise if you behave like a dopey fucking cunt don't be upset if I call you one. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}}
	::::::It depends on the behaviour of the IP or any other editor. PS: Beware of the ] -- ] (]) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			::Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See ].
			Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] The edit summary was quite deliberate on my part, apparently its OK for the IP editor above to repeatedly refer to anyone who has an issue with him in the same manner , , , , , , , , , ,
			: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)
	:Variously, he'll claim:
			::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)
	:* its OK because people revert him solely because he is an IP - which he knows is a lie in my case
			::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* its OK because his edits are superior to everyone else and everyone else is a dopey cunt who can't write an encyclopedia
			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)
	:And as he seems to take delight in targeting articles I've edited I am fucking fed up with it. As far as I can see the guy is simply trolling and opening this ANI thread was just trolling. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks ==
	OP is now on 5RR after warning at ]. I'd go to ], but no point in informing admins in more places than necessary. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{user|2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64}} I saw an IP making an ] on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and ]. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. ] (]) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The IP geolocates to Australia, which is not within the scope of the LTA filing (Chile, Brazil). Are you alleging that the LTA person/persons are branching out? ] (]) 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Its the same guy, he's regularly travelling. If you look at all the IP, you'll find the UK and Canada in there. Check ] and it'll confirm his mobile nature - this is why he keeps avoiding long term scrutiny. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:51, 9 August 2014 (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 ==
	:::The LTA notes that the IP has used geolocations in a variety of locations in the past, including the UK and Canada. Australia would not be unusual and the behavioural evidence is compelling.
			{{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:
	:::Including the bad language. was the first time somebody called somebody else a c*** on the relevant page. It's also the first of the OP's five reverts today (the last of which came after a warning). '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}
	::::OP is now blocked for 3RR. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, I blocked the IP after it reverted a 4th time after being properly warned. That doesn't mean the complaint of the IP editor is invalid, though I'm not going to offer an opinion on the substance of it. ]] 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first () as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a ] policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:In my opinion, the best solution is to just not give such editors any ammunition to further disrupt process. I know they can get under your skin, but just continuing to deal with them through normal process, and without any overt displays of emotion is the only effective strategy. A decent number of serially disruptive editors feed off the emotions and go out of their way to bait you. Your comment was out of line, but personally, I'm not interested in doing anything about it because the IP editor came here with clearly ]. ]] 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}
	:If it is the same person, then yea, let's call it a wash as they have clearly inflamed the situation over the years. ] (]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}
	::If it got dealt with during the normal process, do you imagine I would have responded as I did?
	::No, I basically get told I have to put up with it, I've even had a snarky comment about being the "civility police". This is just a "content dispute" that I should talk out on the article talk page with an editor who responds as above. And too often they've been given fig leafs to hide behind. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I sympathize, as I've had somewhat the same problem, a recurring troll who first turned up around 2009 and pops up periodically for the sole purpose as harassment - and since he's likewise able to hop across various IP's around the world, I'm told to ignore it. Your case is rather worse, what with the woman-hating obscenities your IP friend is throwing around. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::They're obscenities; "woman hating"--not so much. They sure dislike WCM though, and the feeling is very mutual. I can't fault WCM for their outburst, but this should have gone differently, as anyone can see who looks at the article's history. Bugs, this is not a troll. GoodDay, some people don't wish to get accounts, and nothing can make them get one: saying that they continue as an IP editor to avoid scrutiny is pure bad-faith hypothesis.<p>So let me just note that all this starts with but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary, followed by because, well, it's this IP editor: I can see no other reason, and all WCM has to add on the talk page is "it is actually well known"--apparently this was enough for {{U|Kahastok}} to revert, with the net effect of producing a tag team effort that leads to {{U|Favonian}}'s block. So what's next, after all this? {{U|Srich32977}} comes in and does what a decent editor should do: check it out, and ("rm editorializing"). Thank you Srich. In other words, the IP was right after all, despite a long time ago (unexplained, by an IP--and no one batted an eye). So it goes. ] (]) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Obscenities, obviously. And woman-hating in the same way that "fag" is considered to be gay-hating. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::As has been discussed elsewhere, that particular word carries shades of meaning in North America that it does not carry in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as "woman-hating". It is, regardless, offensive and clearly best avoided.
			{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}
	::::::As to Drmies' point about what happened, I disagree with her in policy terms. The source - a ] made by ] and ] - was taken offline at some stage. The BBC does not put programmes online permanently, so this is not surprising. That, taken alone, does not mean that verification was failed or that the source is no longer reliable as seems to be implied. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			Dates:
	:::::If I may clarify, ''most'' IPs are beneficial to the project. They're the gnome's gnome & I value them highly. However they're a tiny few who aren't helpful, such as the IP jumper-in-question. ] (]) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	Does this argument need to spill over into every incident involving personal attacks? It does not matter if it is "woman hating" or not, it was obviously offensive and unacceptable.
			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.
	This is a simple case, it was a clear cut and very offensive personal attack. I have given the user who made the attack an only warning about personal attacks. If it keeps up we block.
			21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
	This is biting the newbies in the worst way and it was in a content dispute. That sort of nastiness has a chilling effect and drives off new users and hurts our ability to find neutrality by driving off all but the thickest of skinned.
			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 ].
	We don't even talk that way to trolls, banned users and spammers. ] 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*Chillum, the IP is not a newbie: details and links to an LTA file are above. What is more troubling than any incivility (from both sides) is what gave rise to it. I have given an account above, which editors and admins are free to disregard it at their own peril, since that's what usually happens. ] (]) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::*Chillum, I don't bite newbies and the accusation is almost as obnoxious as the sanctimonious warning you chose to leave on my talk page. It had already been dealt with, I'd calmed down, apologised and asked for the offensive edit summaries to be redacted and then you steam in half-cocked issuing warnings and laying false accusations of newbie biting. The situation had calmed down as far as I was concerned and to be honest you just brought it back to the boil as far as I'm concerned.
	::* Drmies can attest that as far as this IP editor is concerned the charge that I only revert because they're an IP is false and despite the abuse I did explain my reasoning for reverting their contribution. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::* And to add, did you read the above, as that particular IP editor has been calling me a dopey fucking cunt for years, where is your concern, warnings or blocks been for the past 5 years??? Where has been your concern for the chilling effect on my editing? Eh, tell me that mate. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::*Yes, Wee Curry Monster, I read the whole damn thing. I've read just about every fucking word you wasted on this the past couple of years. It's really boring. Clearly you did ''not'' read all that I've had to say on the matter, since I have blocked this IP at least once. My concern is for the project. In this particular case, and '''anyone can see this in the article history''', one of the IPs edits is reverted for improper reasons at all. First by another IP, then by you, with a cryptic edit summary: "comment is cited and the political motives are well known -[REDACTED] neutrally points out the facts that edit was censorship". (No, it wasn't "censorship": extraordinary claims require good, published evidence.) So the IP editor is "censoring"? Their next revert has a decent summary: "what nonsense. political motivation is as clearly expressed now as before. what is removed is the implication that they were somehow being crafty devils and cunningly "knew" something that the British had inexplicably overlooked". And your revert? The same old song: "rv as usual our foul mouthed IP editor from Chile thinks only his edit is allowed". Well, you're right about one thing: "rv as usual", since that's what you seem to do, regardless of the merit of the edit. If I got reverted as often as this person is, I'd get pissed too.<p>For the onlookers, WCM pointed at ] or its talk page for another example of the IP's bad behavior. That article is another where they got into it, and where, the way I look at it, the IP presented (valid) arguments, while the anti-vandal patrol just keeps rooooooling them back. So, you may ask, how did we solve this, since solve it we did? The normal way: with an RfC. The IP did not get their way in the RfC, but the matter was addressed with arguments. And all is calm now in that article.<p>I'm not making ''apologies'' for the IPs foul language, nor am I condemning WCM for his. It's not the point, nor is WCM's apology (they didn't apologize to the IP, I think). Their charge, that "I've done nothing", that's boloney. I've been trying to mediate and to help--but what WCM and his friends want is simply blocks and protection, and what I want is that IP editors' edits are judged on their content. That's all. ] (]) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:*I hadn't thought about commenting on this, but this kind of admin action is exactly part of the reason why much of this is allowed to continue. A number of admins don't bother to read the story behind a situation prior to making decisions (such as placing warnings or blocks). Rarely is any situation at AN/I simple, and it would be best to keep that mentality at other noticeboards (''e.g.'', the 3RR noticeboard, although even then matters also require good analysis) rather than here. WCM had also clearly apologized for the outburst, which is significant since few editors ever do.--] ] 13:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
	::*As far as I can see there were no admin actions. What admin action are you talking about?<p>The warning was to prevent future incidences, not to punish the earlier incidence. Any user can make a warning and it is not an administrative act. If this is the end of it then fine, but if this type of behavior continues then the warning had been seen. ] 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Well, I did block the IP editor who was complaining about WCM, but that doesn't seem to be what MarshalN20 is upset about. AFAIK, that was the only admin action here. ]] 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not upset, but I am displeased at what I continuously see going on in Misplaced Pages (meaning that this is not to comment on Chillum as an admin, mainly because I haven't interacted with him at all, but rather on admins in general). I consider this ultimatum placed in WCM's talk page (see ), as an unwarranted admin action. Now you may reply to this with a "warnings are not admin tools," but I have learned that warnings placed by admins are always given greater weight than warnings placed by other users. In fact, there are cases when a user's page (usually IP users) is filled with warnings, but admins only take action after seeing another one of them had previously placed a warning. Hence my statement above. Regards.--] ] 16:21, 10 August 2014 (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."''
	{{u|Wee Curry Monster}}, I want to tell you a story. When I was in grade 3 the other kids would make faces at me until I shouted at them, then I would get sent to a little room to get in trouble for shouting. The other kids got caught making faces sometimes and they got in trouble too but that did not get me out of trouble for shouting. I was told that whatever the other kids did that it was I who was responsible for my behavior.
			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.
	By grade 4 I had learned not to let other provoke me into getting myself into trouble.
			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 ].
	I think this long term disruptive editor has less to lose from a personal attack block than you do. I think you are being baited into shouting insults and that you are making his day by responding in kind. I also think my teachers were right that ultimately it is you who decide how to act to provocation and you who bear the responsibility.
			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.
	You are being trolled, and you are feeding that troll. Don't let this person provoke you, it is what they want. ] 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	*I disagree with that last part. I think the IP isn't really enjoying having their edits reverted constantly. ] (]) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (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."''
	Trolls like being reverted, they like being yelled at and insulted, the '''LOVE''' it when someone else gets in trouble for reacting to them. They want attention and reaction and they want to stir up shit. It is what trolls do.
			I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
	Now it could be this is not a dedicated troll, but rather someone who is using trolling to get their point of view out there. In which case they would be annoyed are reversion but happy when they bait the person reverting them into doing something they should not.
			] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Trolls hate it when you ignore them. Block, revert, ignore. This is why I don't even template the talk page of a returning troll as they collect block noticed like trophies. ] 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:"Block-revert-ignore" sounds good, but it leaves out an important fact: The difficulty of convincing an admin to block an obvious troll, and the extra attention the troll gets as a result of an admin slapping the reporting user in the face. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to ]-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It does seem like this could have gone to ]. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from ]. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hello! '''Thelittlefaerie''' speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.
			::::I think if you can apologise and agree to not make ] against other editors again, and refrain from ] (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek ].
			::::Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.
			:::::Thank you,
			:::::'''Thelittlefaerie''' ] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page ] (]) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) ] (]) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			* '''Update''': Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Swagsgod ==
			{{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)
	::I would like to offer a public apology to {{U|Chillum}} for earlier remarks both here and on his talk page. I have already offered a private apology on his talk page but as I also commented here and others have sprung to my defence I felt it important to do so here as well. I thank those who have expressed their concern about the warning but ask you not to challenge Chillum about this any more. Upon reflection, I think he did the right thing and I was out of order. I was annoyed and responded in anger and in a manner that violated the code of conduct I signed up to when I became a[REDACTED] editor. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about such behaviour in others and not apologise when I behave inappropriately myself. I extend that apology to the IP editor for my remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Chillum for their kindness in responding to me in a calm manner that brought me to my senses.
			::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
	::I am extremely disappointed that {{U|Drmies}} misinterpreted my remarks as being directed at them. They were not, there were intended for Chillum and I acknowledge that as I made them in anger perhaps this was not clear and I didn't express myself as well as I could. However, to respond to his subsequent comments I would also note my disappointment in the claim that I'm reverting solely because it was that IP editor. What he describes as a ''"somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary"'' was one which started by referring to another editor as "some cunt", which is why the edit summary was removed. The edit summary was way out line and my response, which is still there, was to point out it was cited and well-known. The suggestion I reverted solely because of who did it, is an allegation I reject.
			::*{{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}}
	::I am further troubled by the way he characterises the situation at ]. The original edit was a minor edit, where the IP editor removed the make of car claiming it was irrelevant. A number of editors disagreed and suggested it was a relevant detail. In the normal course of events, a discussion would have settled the matter on the talk page. That the normal course of events didn't happen was because this IP editor, simply revert warred multiple editors and contributed a load of foul mouth expletives in talk. They were reverted because they refused to engage in talk not because they were an IP editor. The RFC Drmies imposed was a waste of the communities time, it was simply something that needed a discussion in talk to sort out.
			::*{{tq|Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests}}
	::Fundamentally Drmies, you are giving the IP editor a fig leaf to hide behind. You're basically saying its OK for them to respond as they do, when they're reverted if their edit improves the article as you understand why it may make them upset. No one likes to see their edits reverted but a load of good edits does not build up credit to be a total ] if someone disagrees with them. That they get reverted repeatedly is often down to the way they act.
			::etc. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::{{U|Baseball Bugs}} makes a good point above, the guy is trolling and I bet he is having a great laugh everytime you Drmies wade in to defend them.
			:::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)
	::Furthermore, Drmies claim that all I want is blocks and protection is utter nonsense. What I want is to be able to edit articles without minor disagreements escalating into foul mouthed expletives if someone disagrees with me about an edit. And I want to be able to discuss edits in talk in a reasonable manner, without one editor revert warring multiple editors to impose their will. That is after all how its supposed to work. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:55, 10 August 2014 (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)
	:::WCM, "fig leaf"? Bullshit. (And I have no idea what you mean with comments not aimed at me.) Troll? No. Chillum, you need to look much more carefully. The talk page for Ian Gow is a clear indicator that, if the IP is not just reverted but is allowed to participate in community discussion, there is no problem. To call an RfC over an important matter (where I and others, not just the IP, disagreed with WCM) a "waste of time" is indicative of the attitude here. "Waste of time"? You know collaborative editing ''requires'' discussion, right? And that RfC is an accepted and encouraged way or reaching content decisions, right? Those blind reverts you and a bunch of others throw out, those are a waste of time. They're insulting, and they invite the behavior that is here mischaracterized as trolling. Bugs, you should know better: you've been accused of trolling often enough. WCM, "discuss edits in a reasonable manner"? Well, do it then. On ] you opened with "I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor", and then you went on to ''completely fail to address the content question''. I see that in 2011 you already had this snarky tone toward uninvolved editors who tried to help, {{U|Born2cycle}}.<p>Fig leaf, my ass. Please look, all you impartial observers, at ] (and the RfC I started), which is the first attempt to actually solve the situation--and guess what, the situation was solved with an RfC. And you, WCM, got your car make in the article (yes, the dispute was that silly), and the IP ''never'' came back to change it again. Instead of a "thank you Drmies" I get to hear "it was a waste of time"--a waste of ''my'' time, yeah. "Defend the IP"--I'll defend ''any'' editor who is treated like this one has by a variety of editors, not just you. I won't defend their language or their edit warring, but hey, you've been quite the edit warrior yourself here. Note also that you're the one throwing the c-word around and you didn't get blocked, so maybe you should be grateful. And I wonder: who's following whose edits around? But don't answer that: this thread is already long enough. ] (]) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (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 ==
	::::@{{U|Drmies}} I said it was a waste of the communities time to force an RFC over a trivial edit that could be resolved by reasonable editors in talk. To further make it plain, I meant precisely by a community discussion in talk. It was not a dispute of a level that warranted an RFC, just one foul mouthed stubborn editor who insisted it had to be done their way. If you're upset that I characterise your RFC as a waste of time, then I'm sorry about that but fear of offending you shouldn't stop me from speaking plainly. I nevertheless don't appreciate you inferring motives or emotions in my comments that aren't there.
	::::You're being disingenuous to claim that the IP editor would have engaged in talk if given the opportunity, they wouldn't and they didn't. Thanks for paging {{U|Born2cycle}} because he can confirm they didn't engage in talk. Their participation in the RFC at ] was less than optimal such as their repeat of your allegation of anti-IP bigotry. You seem to forget in your rant above that you acknowledged I had been more than reasonable with the guy .
	::::As regards your innuendo that I'm following the guy, I very much feel the need to respond to such a blatantly bad faith accusation. Firstly I invite you to explain how I could do so, given the IP is constantly changing. Secondly, I draw your attention to my first edit to the article on 3 March 2011 . <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, yeah. My "rant" was possibly prompted by the rather dumb suggestion that an RfC which settled a dispute was a waste of time. I'm not hurt or upset by it--I just think that it's a stupid statement to make, and I think it's worth pointing that out. As for my "innuendo" and the bad-faith accusation and whatever: I merely inquired how you run into this guy so often. Chicken or egg? It's a valid question. If that question upsets you, well, I'm sorry, but if you take the prerogative of speaking plainly, then so will I. Now, let me offer you one more suggestion: please stop pinging me here. This thread is going nowhere--the IP got blocked, and you didn't, so move on. Thank you. ] (]) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I often look at threads where I have participated, and sometimes I notice that although I have made hugely important contributions, in fact I am usually the most important person in the room, everyone is rude to me (maybe they are emotional about something) and it's very difficult to make progress on anything. If things seem to be basically under control otherwise, and I seem to be descending into another argument rather than removing arguments, then the strategy I often adopt in such circumstances is to... walk away.
			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.
	::::::Don't argue about who has pinged who or who is responsible for speaking plainly first, et cetera. Just, walk away. Sell the last word to a strange guy by the side of the road. Why worry? --] (]) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Pinging {{U|Drmies}} I asked you a direct question, I invited you to explain how I could follow an IP editor whose IP is constantly changing. A question you rather blatantly avoided, to repeat the same innuendo. The answer is that it is in fact virtually impossibly for me to do so and yet you repeat the same innuendo with a further insinuation with reference to the frequency which the IP crops up on my radar. Chicken or egg? Join the dots. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Um, this seems to be a fairly long thread and I was thinking about letting people work it out, but there's something I don't see addressed here, and it doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it. Wee Curry Monster had his topic ban on Falkland Islands topics lifted after he agreed to a 1RR condition. Has anyone taken a look to see if that's been honoured in all this mess? Wee Curry Monster is supposed to be extra careful on these pages. Multiple reverts and incivility on a Falklands war related page is part of a pattern of behaviour beyond this incident or the other user involved.] 23:52, 11 August 2014 (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. ] (]) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	] has continuously been recreating a identical page with a different name each time. They were.
			: 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)
			== IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles ==
	First article (by another user)
			{{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)}}
	*] - deleted in AfD. Iranmanesh53 comments saying it is notable.
			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 .
			#
	His recreations:
			#
	*] - speedy deleted
			#
	*] - speedy deleted
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			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)
	What do you administrators think? -- Cheers ] - ] - ] 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:While there have been the Speedy Deletion templates and there was the AFD discussion, there doesn't seem to have been any good attempt to discuss the issue with Iranmanesh53, so I've started one. I did my best to keep my language simple but I don't know if I'm very good at it. Hopefully this will be enough. ] (]) 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|User:Nil Einne}} Sorry but where is this discussion you talk of? ] - ] - ] 06:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|User:Nil Einne}} I just checked the history of his/her talk page and they seem to have deleted your request for discussion. ] - ] - ] 06:47, 6 August 2014 (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 {{IP user|2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07}}
	For everyones info this user has: created a page that has been deleted (twice), been warned on his talk page, and now recreated another page which was ] (which is a current speedy candidate). '''This has to warrant a block'''
			::I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is {{confirmed}} block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been for disruption.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you! ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Abusive user ==
	'''and he recreates the ] page as ] (speedy candidate)''' ] - ] - ] 09:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{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)}}
	:I noticed they removed my message (which they're of course entitled to do) and left a thank you note earlier. I assumed this meant they'd received all the help they need and would change their behaviour. I'm lazy and not sure if I can check since I'm not an admin but if they recreated these articles after I told them not to, this obviously isn't a good sign. In any case, I've given them a clearer warning they need to stop or be blocked. I don't really care if someone decides to block anyway, but if not I suggest they should be blocked if they recreate any articles again. It doesn't sound like they're listening. ] (]) 16:11, 6 August 2014 (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)
	Just for the admin settling this he deleted a AFD template from a page at Afd. ] - ] - ] 09:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
			:This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{comment}}: thread restored. ] (]) 13:38, 9 August 2014 (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)
	:Echoing Nil Einne above, I won't personally block (since I did comment on an AfD about an article this editor created), but would not be opposed to a block, at least until such a time that the community is satisfied that these issues won't arise again... maybe an editing restriction to allow article creation via AFC only?. It looks like there are several issues here, such as a language issue, ], and (possibly) ]. --<font face="Book Antiqua">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 19:39, 9 August 2014 (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)
	:: Similarly, I'm unconvinced that a block is required at this stage. ] (]) 21:57, 9 August 2014 (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 ==
	== POINT-ful IP at Hacker News ==
			*{{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)
	Could an admin please review the most recent contributions from ] (]) at ] and the accompanying talk-page discussion? The editor in question has been slow-speed warring a one-sided controversy section into the article, removing POV and verifiability issue templates from that section, threatening an overt edit-war (), and, most recently, asserting that he/she would abuse open proxies if blocked for said behavior (). I'm suggesting the article be semi-protected, although I defer to the judgement of those with cooler tempers than I. Thanks! ] 21:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. ] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am the editor in question and I advise admin staff to review the talk page to see the context of the talk. A number of editors have attempted to highlight the valid and oft-discussed moderation policy at Hacker News however two accounts continually revert any edits and remove any citations without giving a valid reason.
			== Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP ==
	Upon questioning their motives they stonewall answers and continue to revert the changes. I am not the first editor to raise the moderation piece, I am one of a series but Vladimir and BetaFive are intent on applying their draconian interpretation of the rules without justifying any reasoning and denying primary sources including published letters and communications from parties affected.
			{{atop
			| result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
	It was under the context of continual reversions that I told BetaFive that if he refused to engage in dialogue then obviously an edit war would continue (of which he is 50% responsible). When he said I would be blocked I highlighted I could resort to a proxy so blocking would be pointless in this regard. I fail to see how he can accuse one half of a reversion disagreement with being unreasonable when he will not cease reverting edits himself or engage in any dialogue whatsoever.
			Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	] (]) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Per ], you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. ] (]/]) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks, I've made a note of that. ] (]) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== revoke TPA for ]? ==
	:This is a content matter, but I've gutted about half of the article, including the entire criticism / controversy section, as not being reliably sourced. You can't reasonably have an article about an online forum that sources criticism of the forum entirely to people's on-forum complaints, and then personal blog posts where they complain about how they were treated on the forum. That would be original research in any context, but it is especially unreliable on a discussion forum — it would be like sourcing Misplaced Pages's article to this page. I've removed the POV tag because after removing the unreliably sourced information there is no POV left. - ] (]) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'd like to add something which might be relevant to this ANI section. The user has stated or alluded that his position is supported by multiple editors:
			}}
	*
	*
	* (higher in this disccussion)
	I've looked into the page's history, and noticed that all edits which attempt to (re)introduce the moderation controversy into the article come from IP addresses:
	* by {{IP|24.5.218.203}}
	* by {{IP|90.205.226.114}}
	* by {{IP|176.249.50.22}}
	* by {{IP|157.203.242.36}}
	*, , by {{IP|2.219.55.12}}
	I thought it was worth bringing up considering the user's threats to abuse open proxies. --] (]) 10:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:That is an outright lie and selective reading of the edits. Are you denying that Wingman and others have not sourced and added to the moderation controversy paragraph? Is that what you are stating? I expect your answer full rounded out with all of the edits and not *just* the selective anonymous edits you have chosen. --] (]) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: are non-content, formatting only. I cannot provide evidence for the absence of something. If I am wrong, provide counter-examples. --] (]) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:One more: . Editor that "the editing will continue". --] (]) 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Insinuating that because I am currently editing from an IP and I did so in July that all the edits are from the same person. You should have the moral fortitude to just come out and say it. If I am indeed the mystery editor for all changes well gosh...haven't I just bided my time nicely between edits; almost 5 years! I care about this issue but not enough to spread out a nefarious plot over 36 months or more.
	::In addition, you *still* refuse to answer questions on why a primary source is not valid. In actual fact, you are refusing to answer any of my questions on the talk page. So yes, for everyone to see, I am stating right now that if editors contending my edits refuse to engage in dialogue then I see no reason why their edits should be respected.
	::Engage in dialogue, reach a consensus or the edits continue. I do not see that as unreasonable; your insistence on publishing links to[REDACTED] rules with absolutely no context is more disruptive.
	::] (]) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	* It seems to me like this is a case where semi-protection would be warranted until people calm down. Disclaimer: I don't post to HN so I have no idea how deserved (or undeserved) criticism thereof is. What I do know is that for example ] has received plenty of criticism for how it does some things (some of which appears in highly upvoted threads on its own meta site, e.g. ) but it can be difficult to find non-self-published sources to even mention the issues. Some info remains ghetto, for better or worse, even in a supposedly highly connected interweb. ] (]) 14:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes, but the point of Misplaced Pages is ] to discuss all "issues" with all popular web sites. I'd also note that some might find your use of the word "ghetto" inappropriate (smh.) I do agree that semiportection is called for, though. ] 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::That is exactly the case JMP. The editors are denying any source which is reflecting negatively on Hacker News whilst accepting all positive sources originating from Hacker News and Paul Graham himself. The equivalent would be accepting the financial statements of a corporation as gospel and refusing to accept whistleblowing by employees. ] (]) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	* The editor is now edit warring to blank nearly all of the article claiming that if primary sources cannot be used as ] to demonstrate a moderation controversy they can't be used to source things like the name of the founder. It's somewhere between ] and vandalism at this point. The article ought to be semi-protected at this point, restored to a version without any vandalism, and if anyone can get a fix on the IP, probably a range block. - ] (]) 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	** Agree with semi-protection, but I think IP range blocks are uncalled for at this point. The editor is interested in only one article, semi-protection should solve the vandalism/] edits, and still allow him/her to continue the discussion on the talk page. --] (]) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: Why should the article be locked without the moderation controversy wikidemon? The moderation controversy paragraph was established before either you or I arrived at the article to edit so please explain why *your* version should be protected? You have yet to explain Paul Graham is a legitimate primary source but anyone criticizing Mr Graham is to be discounted as a primary source. Let's lock the article *with* the moderation controversy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::I've listed this article at ], asking for temporary semi-protection. Tbh, I don't care ] is protected; we can hash out the content with {{tl|edit semi-protected}} requests on the talk page if it comes to that. ] 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: If an admin is watching this, could we please just do it? The issue is pretty black and white, and vandalizing an article to prove a point is clear. - ] (]) 17:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: It is only black and white to you because you think you are right. Further evidence of your dismissive attitude and lack of willingness to engage in dialogue. Listen to yourself, your attitude is not reflective of the principles of wikipedia. Find another article to peddle your superiority complex. ] (]) 08:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	FYI, I have also brought this editor's behavior to ]. ] 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Update'''. I've done some quick editing on the article (in which I wasn't involved before) using a (not self-published) secondary source. It seems that both sides in above dispute have seen my edits as a reasonable compromise. So more drastic admin measures can probably be postponed until/unless there's another flare up; crossing fingers that won't happen... but then this is the internet. ] (]) 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	**The IP editor is currently engaged in an incredibly stupid revert war on the article talk page. 5RR at this point I believe. - ] (]) 17:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	** Well WikiDemon, the user is now reverting your own edits as well. 18:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*** And so has ]. I don't really want to know what that's about. Admins: fire at will. ] (]) 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	****As ] pointed out on one of those user's IP talk page (), editing another user's comments after warnings not to do so is vandalism, the reversion of which is exempt from 3RR. ] 18:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	****I simply want the Editor BetaFive to stop listing his conclusion as *the* conclusion for the page. Yet he refuses to edit the Summary so I am editing it for him. WikiDemon, pack up your bias and get lost. Any reasonable editor can see that BetaFive does NOT reserve the right to summarise his own arguments as the consensus of everyone on the talk page. ] (]) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*****(ec) 6RR now. Yes, it's pretty obvious what the IP's beef is, they want vindication of their content position so they're edit warring their opinion into BetaFive's attempt to summarize the discussion, and BetaFive either doesn't notice or doesn't care that the newbie objects to the "conclusion" template's making BetaFive's summary look official. None of that matters too much, we shouldn't waste our time coddling a clueless newbie who repeatedly gets into angry edit war mode, they've got to get with the program or take a little break. - ] (]) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	****** Partially correct. I am not edit warring. I asked Betafive to write an impartial summary or simply remove his arguments from the summary. It presents a false picture to newer editors coming in. He refused. It is that simple. I don't need coddled, what I need is cliquey people to stop acting like little schoolgirls and grouping together. Now, Betafive has shown his true colours by also reverting the edits by Wikidemon so is he now vandalising? No, prob not. It must be OK for two friends to edit each others comments. Just not for the new guy to demand some impartiality from two morons who cannot see that a Conclusion should list all of the input into the Conclusion not just the parts that agree with WikiDemon and BetaFive. It was clearly an attempt to list themselves as the victors. Transparent and childish. ] (]) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	I've closed the discussion thread. In all frankness, I don't care whether the IP has a point or not with the conclusion. The issue at hand is dealt with, and nothing further is going to come out of that discussion. Personally, I'd suggest anybody wanting to figure out the points of the discussion to read the discussion rather than a refactored synopsis...and after having read to draw your own conclusion, there's nothing further to see, please move along. —''']''' (]) 18:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I've fixed the broken format created by all the edit warring. The content point is simple, an inexperienced editor wants to add some content without having a solid grounding on our sourcing and other standards. The reason it came here instead of staying on the talk page is that instead of trying to read and understand the rules or listen to other editors they threw a fit and started edit warring, insulting people, feeling victimized, etc. A common enough problem. If they stay here, and don't learn from this, it's going to recur. A quick block or page semi-protection at the beginning would have saved a lot of trouble, that's why 3RR is supposed to be a bright-line rule. - ] (]) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::It's not really that simple though is it. The information was cited and eventually it took other editors to finally find the citations that you were happy with *despite*[REDACTED] stating that primary sources are valid in non-contentious issues. I am fairly sure we can trust over 20 individual blog posts from different tech leaders all discussing Hellbanning. Well, we can except you can't. What actually happened is an inexperienced editor utterly tore your logic to pieces and you didn't like it because you feel some ownership over editing at wikipedia. You refused to engage in any dialogue or display even a shred of credibility regarding your thinking. All in all, every time you were challenged you threw up[REDACTED] "rules" which neither supported your logic or made any sense. I admit I might have reverted too many times, but it does not vindicate your behaviour. Now how about you shut up talking about me, you are not even close to the intellectual level required to debate critically. I agree that these problems will recur, but it is *because* of editors like you not in spite of you. ] (]) 19:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::My honourable colleague would do well to avoid personal attacks against the character and intellect of his fellow editors. Such comments do not promote harmonious editing and are grounds for ]. —''']''' (]) 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Nor do they bode well for this editor's becoming a useful contributor. Their fixation over moderation complaints, rules, and other editors here and on Hacker News suggests they're a serial social breacher; the fixation on maturity and boasts about superior intellectual abilities tells me they're young, and their spelling says UK. So what do we have? Too much time wasted already. Misplaced Pages could use some stronger moderation, perhaps even a forum for bringing disruptive behavior to the attention of administrators for a quick resolution. - ] (]) 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::We '''have''' that forum: it's ]. I brought the user's behavior there after six reverts or something. Almost a dozen more reverts later, he/she/it ''still'' hasn't had editing privileges revoked. The issue isn't that the processes aren't there, it's that they're only selectively enforced. I'm #smh so hard at this kerfuffle it may fall off. ] 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Request for block for copyright violations: ] ==
	I have just opened a ] for {{user|Superzohar}} who, it is evident, has been copy-pasting material (both in English and through translations) for a significant amount of time. He was warned about this kind of thing:
	*Twice in 2008 ( and )
	*Once in 2012
	*Once on 11 July 2014 when the CCI request was filed
	I can see no evidence that the editor has ever responded to the issues or taken them into account in his editing. His latest copyright violation was added on 8 August.
	In light of the ongoing non-responsiveness and continued copyright violations, I request an indefinite block to prevent further damage being done. --] (]) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	: Done :/ -- ] (]) 03:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Thank you :) --] (]) 03:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User Skyhook1 on article Skyhook ==
	User {{u|Skyhook1}} (IP ), a '''single-purpose account''', has been displaying a hostile "ownership" attitude for several months and faking positive reviews on the ] article. The administrator {{u|Huntster}} kindly helped me a lot to contain this user, until I got burned by the futility of trying to explain Verifiability and O.R. to Skyhook1. Whenever an editor adds a label, any label, including cleanup, citation needed, etc, he reverts it. There have been too many acid interactions to list them all. In addition:
	*On March 7, 2014 he had a fit and performed 84 "undo" operations.
	*On 22 April 2014 he was blocked for 24 h.
	*On 22 June 2014 the article was semi-protected . That is when he seems to have started using Skyhook1 account regularly.
	Over the months, I have spent a lot of time checking and fixing his text against the references, as the article fails verification. He rejects all changes and feedback. What is most troubling is that he is faking the conclusion of a report by ''Boeing'' that reviews 6 different space tether systems: Skyhook, Rotovator, CardioRotovator, CASTether/LIFTether, Tillotson Two-Tier Tether, and HARGSTOL/HASTOL. The Boeing study notes that: "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." And concludes: '''"In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts."''' However he quotes the positive aspects of the HARGSTOL/HASTOL systems and uses them as if they were written for the Skyhook.
	Of secondary but still high importance, he has introduced an inordinate amount of his Original Research and Synthesis on the qualities, peer acceptance and uses of the Skyhook tether. Aside from its promoter, no reference claims it can be built with existing materials, and when challenged, he asks you to do mathematical calculations, instead of citing a usable reference.
	He claims he is a NASA engineer involved in the Skyhook project so he knows better than anybody else. No corrections needed. Not even the SPAM/advert style. ("I am an aeronautical engineer, a rocket scientist, a former test pilot, and probably the largest single contributor to former President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration". I have 4 degrees.")
	The final drop was today; he is blaming me of posting porn links into the Skyhook article under a sock puppet account.. I have concluded that this is no ordinary edit war, but there is an larger issue of ] and ownership.
	Your assistance is needed and appreciated. Cheers, ] (]) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:The content dispute between BI and myself has been going on for quite awhile. You can review the current history in items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. Item 22, which was a request for WP:30, resulted in BI and friends ceasing their non-stop vandalism. That was on 22 June. From 22 June until 9 August I was able to work on the article (including input from other editors) without their inputs. You can view that version of the article on the Skyhook (structure)/view history page, the version dated 00:01, 10 August 2014. BI and friends version of the article is the one currently showing (17:56, 10 August 2014). If you will read both versions you will get a very clear view of the dispute. My positions is that BI's version is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and the state-of-the art regarding skyhooks, all of which can be confirmed by reading the references that are in the 00:01, 10 August 2014 version of the article (most of which have been deleted from her version). There was also the beginnings of a discussion on this dispute on User talk: Unician, item 36, Re: Skyhook (structure) that you might find of value.
	:What I would like to see happen is for BI and friends to cease their vandalism, their wholesale deletion of sections of the article that show the incorrectness of their position, their misrepresentation of the facts, their sock puppet changes, their tag team behavior, and their linking of porn sites to the references. ( I first noticed the porn site links on 17:33, 3 July 2014. They were added on 02:38, 3 July by 79.67.245.33. 79.67.245.33 is one of the URLs for BI when she forgets to sign in. The porn site links are now gone. How they were put in and how they were removed I don't know. As to the sock puppets they are pretty easy to find if you are interested - check their contribution pages. )
	:In closing I would like to state my goals for the Skyhook (structure) article. They are simple. I am attempting to create an article on skyhooks, both rotating and non-rotating, that is informative, technically correct, up to date, fun to read, written so non-technical people can understand it and still be an information resource for technical people who are interested in this topic. When people ask questions, make comments, etc., I attempt to address those issues by adding more information to the article. The additions that were made to the article as a result of edits made by 92.32.80.56 and McSly are two examples of this.
	:Thank you for your time. ] (]) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: ] does not seem to contain any proof whatsoever that it's ]. The discussion of porn links also appears to be upside-down, because the edits by the former anonymous user (not introducing it).
	:::Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The porn site links were first added by 79.67.245.33 on 02:38, 3 July. Yes it does appear that they removed them from the history but only after I had removed them from the article on 01:54, 4 July. ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: . You're reading abusive intent from a run-off-the-mill edit - this is standard procedure when formatting references with {{cs1}} templates. Besides, it's not this anonymous user who caused the original website to be overtaken by an unrelated organization, that problem had already existed, which was likely the reason why those inline external links went to the Wayback Machine. --] (]) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you for the response. I considered that possibility at the time but the specific references that had the porn site link attached also indicated BI. While that is not proof, in my mind it is a preponderance of indicators. One last thought on this subject; why did she feel the need to make these changes without signing in if she was fixing a problem that someone else had make? The fact that these are the only contributions by this user would appear to indicate the lack of signing in was intentional. ] (]) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: In general the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the latest round of huge reverts started when an anonymous editor mass-reverted ]'s edits without a clear edit summary, which was ostensibly tendentious and it started an edit war where parties didn't provide new, clear explanations of why they were adding or removing 38k of text (an edit summary rarely suffices in such a case).
	:::::Another question for you. This anonymous editor who did the mass-revert and started this latest round - why am I the one who you would censure when I was only undoing what I thought was vandalism? Also, if this truly was an anonymous edit, why has everyone else been so quick to undo months worth of work and change the article back to what it was many months ago? Why not just revert it to the pre-vandalism version? As I have been told so many times, everything on[REDACTED] is supposed to be by consensus and should be discussed on the Talk page. Don't you think that such massive changes as these should have been discussed?
	:::::Here is another thought for you. This anonymous editor of the mass revert was redone by BI under her own name after I had reverted it. Is it possible that this anonymous editor was BI or a friend of BI's doing her bidding? And if not, why did BI reinstate an apparent case of vandalism and why has everyone else been so quick to support this massive revert? Again, where is the discussion and who is acting like they own the article? ] (]) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	I've had a brief look at the latest bit of discussion at ] and the referenced HASTOL source, and it appears that BatteryIncluded is correct - our article about "skyhook" was using that term in a way that makes it unverifiable from the said HASTOL source - that source applies the term to "HyperSkyhook", but not to "HARGSTOL". The inference that both are skyhooks needs to be directly referenced from a source that actually says so, otherwise it's we have a trivial ] violation. The cover term used by the HASTOL source is "]", which is a separate Misplaced Pages article.
	:::Please review items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page for more information regarding the content dispute on the HASTOL report. You are incorrect in your conclusion. ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: Overall, I see no reason not to censure Skyhook1 for numerous policy violations (], ], ], ]). I suppose it's not impossible that someone interjects here by presenting unambiguous supporting materials for their claims, which would explain some of their behavior - but that still wouldn't mean much because these ] issues are a problem in and of itself. --] (]) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	This is a mess, and it's where we fall down. {{U|BatteryIncluded}} has done their best against this onslaught of POV garbage for a long time, with occasional support from good users. I think that has been a lonely job, and I thank them for doing it. If I knew how to go over there and help personally, I would, but I don't. We need to deal with this type of long term tendentious editing better. I don't know how, exactly, but supporting {{U|BatteryIncluded}} with whatever this board has at its disposal would be a start. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 20:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::So you give no credence to the comments by Stfg in item 22 of the Skyhook (structure) Talk page? ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Which comments? ''"the repeated, frankly tendentious insertions of your material into the article while you neglect basic Misplaced Pages competences"'', or ''"You're setting yourself above other editors and marking out a battleground, and you'll get nowhere like that."'', perhaps? I'd give those comments some credence, yes. Perhaps you could do so, also. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::And what about this one? "@BatteryIncluded:, @Huntster: I'm quite surprised to see two such experienced editors, and one of you an admin, arguing by edit summary, where you tell the IP to come to the talk page, and when he comes to the talk page, you ignore him here. I don't know and don't care about the technical details, but this is good faith editing, not vandalism, and I think you are both being unfair to do that. You also appear indistinguishable from a tag team.--Stfg (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)"
	:::::BEgoon I did not come to[REDACTED] to pick fights but to write an article on skyhooks. From my perspective the fight was started by BI and friends. But I am also not inclined to backdown from a fight that someone else starts with me. Does that mean I put myself above everyone else? No, it just means that I push back when pushed. That might be inconvenient for you but you are here by choice too. You accuse me of POV; yet you have also made it clear that you have a POV and BI has made it clear that she has a POV, and all the other editors who have helped revert the skyhook article back to what it was months ago also have a POV. Isn't part of your job here to investigate the dispute and find out what the truth is in all of those POVs? Or is that a mistaken assumption on my part?
	:::::Here is a question for you about determining the truth. BI is fond of quoting the HASTOL report. Specifically, "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." She uses that as justification for her position that skyhooks can not be built. I have attempted to answer that many times as follows: "I have no disagreement with this statement. None of the skyhook studies referenced in the article are for skyhooks with a lower endpoint velocity this slow. None of them, rotating or non-rotating, come anywhere close to that slow of a lower endpoint velocity. The positive reviews for skyhooks in the HASTOL study that are included in this article are all for skyhooks with faster lower endpoint velocities." The positive review for the HASTOL study that I am referring to is this "The fundamental conclusion of the Phase I HASTOL study effort is that the concept is technically feasible. We have evaluated a number of alternate system configurations that will allow hypersonic air-breathing vehicle technologies to be combined with orbiting, spinning space tether technologies to provide a method of moving payloads from the surface of the Earth into Earth orbit. For more than one HASTOL architecture concept, we have developed a design solution using existing, or near-term technologies. We expect that a number of the other HASTOL architecture concepts will prove similarly technically feasible when subjected to detailed design studies. The systems are completely reusable and have the potential of drastically reducing the cost of Earth-to-orbit space access." BI is also fond of quoting the HASTOL study statement "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts." If someone wrote that in a[REDACTED] article you would call it POV and delete it and you would be correct, it is POV. But it does not say that the non-spinning tether for the length they investigated could not be built. I have also told BI about all the other references that prove that skyhooks can be built but BI never responds to those comments other than to delete the references. So if you really are attempting to be fair, honest, and impartial in this investigation, how about you investigate these issues yourself by reading the references? ] (]) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Skyhook1: If you are holding one position, and "all of the other editors who have helped revert" are holding another position, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if just maybe you, and not them, are the one in the wrong. If "all of the other editors" are holding a position opposite yours, you need to stop trying to push "]" and accept that ] is against you. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::POV aside, many of user Skyhook1 entries are simply misleading fantasy, I once deleted an entry stating some kind of partnership between Skyhook and SpaceX. Please note user Skyhook1 states above that all the systems reviewed by Boeing are "Skyhooks" (false, they are orbiting ]s), so he claims that all the listed positive qualities of HASTOL applies to the Skyhook. But when the report concludes '''BY NAME''' that the Skyhook system is NOT competitive with the other 5 models, he changes the tune and wants us to believe that it does not actually apply to the Skyhook. It is very clear this single-purpose user has a bias, a possible conflict of interest, and introduces a massive amount of OR, POV and Synthesis generously sprinkled with ]. I hope that with your help this issue will come to a permanent solution soon. Thanks, ] (]) 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping|BatteryIncluded}} Unless you're proposing formal sanctions on Skyhook1, the solution has already been implemented: the article has been pared back by other editors including myself to what is adequately sourced. Content can be added if it has proper references as I indicated on the talk page. All we need (right now) is for editors to keep an eye on the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thank you. ] (]) 17:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Indeed, I agree - the article as it stands is fine, and I thanked NeilN on the talkpage for the good work. Sanctions are preventative, so unless Skyhook1 were to continue adding poorly sourced OR material against consensus, or editing tendentiously in other ways, there'd be no need for that. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User:Andrew Hendo ==
	*{{userlinks|Andrew Hendo}}
	The user is repeatedly attempting to change the date of a replaceable fair use tag on one of his uploads to 2015 and left me a vandalism warning after I reverted him . The user's talk page suggests this user has a history of disruption. <font color="navy">]</font> <small>(<font color="navy">]</font>)</small> 13:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I have reverted to the original date of the tag and full-protected the image, and left a personal note on the user's talk page. -- ] (]) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Odd IP edits at ] and related pages ==
	I don't really recall why, but a few days ago I looked at {{la|Taipei}} and saw that its dablink was full of references to Beijing, someone had decided to define Taiwan as a "democratic industrialized island country" in the lede, and that every instance of "Republic of China" on the page was appended with "(Taiwan)" amongst other changes that can be seen in . I also saw that this individual, operating on {{IP|75.182.34.113}}, {{IP|70.197.75.235}}, and {{IP|64.134.235.133}} has been disruptively editing other articles on Chinese topics, making sure to add , (note all the "People's Republic of China (PRC)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" stuff), and . ] ] and his problematic edits. I attempted to address these issues with him directly on his most recently used IP, but I fear he will not be too open to discussion. Something fishy is definitely going on.—] (]) 13:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:IP hopper committing nationalistic vandalism: can't we simply ]? confirms that he won't chat, so I don't see anything that can be done beyond RBI. ] (]) 14:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	== STiki ==
	Am unsure where to report this (if not here) but it appears that an ip editor is either using ] to resolve vandalism edits or is proporting to be doing so in their edit summaries. My understanding was taht someone required a WP account to run this so an Ip editor would be unable to. Advice/assistance would be appreciated in dealing/pointing in right direction. I have looked on the ] page but couldnt see a relevent place to post this there. ] (])(]) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	: It would be best to report it to ] as the developer often responds to issues there promptly. ] (]) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Done. ] (])(]) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: As developer of ], I have looked into this case. It looks pretty innocent to me, but could indicate software issues (and I can't determine whether they are in STiki or Mediawiki itself). {{redacted}}.
	::: Sometime during the STiki session the edits on Misplaced Pages stopped being associated to the username, and instead to the IP address {{redacted}} but it certainly looks benign from a behavioral perspective. Will monitor further. Thanks, ] (]) 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: Also, echo me here or ping me on my talk page/] if more is needed; I am not a follower. ] (]) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera ==
	We were having discussion on ] when ] gave me legal threat on my talk page when I the User, the was personal attack (''"you are '''arguing blindly'''"'') & further legal threat (''"you are ready for blocking and court cases?"'') and then further threats (''"are you ready for blocking?"'' & ''"we will legally solve in court! are you ready?''"). The user has done personal attacks on me while having discussion with other user on their talk pages too e.g. (''"arguing blindly"'') The user is also engaged in ] and trying to form block against me which is clear from the posts made by user , and . I'm feeling shocked & depressed by such vieled personal attacks and legal threats, after so much effort this is what i'm getting from fellow editors.--<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">]</span></b><i><sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub></i> 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Visakha veera has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly making legal threats like . I'd also like to note that he had been warned about possible in ] territory. ] (]) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:*It's no excuse for Visakha veera's behaviour but the background to it is repeated POV-pushing on ] (and to a lesser extent also on other articles) by Faizhaider, claiming that ] is an official language in post-partition AP, "supporting" his claim with references that say nothing of the sort, while refusing to accept sources, including the Andhra Pradesh government web portal, that say that ''"the official language in Andhra Pradesh is ]"'', with "official language" in the singular. Which since there's a lot of tension around the status of various languages in India, and perhaps more so in Telangana and "new" Andhra Pradesh (which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago) than in other parts of India, means that there was quite a bit of provocation leading up to the legal threat. ] ] 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	::*I think that about sums it up. I'm having a hard time digging through Faizhaider's various relevant edits but I agree that he doesn't seem to be quite innocent either in this dispute. I've explained to Visakha Veera that they may be unblocked once they retract the legal threat. But I'm also wondering if a temporary topic ban for both editors as part of an arbitration enforcement would be justified. ] (]) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::*I would definitely support a topic ban for both editors, regardless of length. A topic ban that for Faizhaider should include adding Urdu as official, co-official or second language to any article relating to India, broadly construed. He has been told to stop his POV-pushing, and knows he's being watched, but a topic ban, regardless of length, would send an even clearer message to him than just a message from me on his talk page. ] ] 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::: Dear ], your statement ''"which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago"'', tells that although you are involved in the article & discussions but you may not be aware of exact background, Telangana was not carved out of Andhra Pradesh along language lines but in contrast Andhra Pradesh is first non-Hindi state which got splitted and that was due to development issues (and not language).
	:::: Admins, my edits may be called POV but they are NPOV as can be seen throughout my discussion I have been patiently answering the points raised by other editors in ambit of WP policies and decorum. But other group seems to come one after one raising same points which I have answered already, then too I didn't lost my cool and urged the editor(s) to go through previous comments. Intrestingly, I have constantly been asked to produce proof from official sources while they are now relying on ambigous blog/news link. When they were not able to answer my points and logic they lost their cool and started abusing me (they also had coversation in Telugu and used words like stubborn to define me). In whole discussion I have been ] and tried to answer each and every objection. I have given numerous links and quoted Acts & Laws of India & Andhra Pradesh to show status of Hindi, English & other state language(s) but nobody seems to be looking at them and totally ignoring them. User has been removing data on AP and other articles while discussion was going on and that too without edit summary. Recently I have not tried to restore any of the removed content so I fail to understand how that mounts to POV push or edit-war.
	:::: I'll urge admins to closely go through the discussion at ] and also look at postings of all editors involved on various other User Talk pages as there have been attempt of ] against me & my edits.--<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">]</span></b><i><sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub></i> 06:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*As an uninvolved editor, the impression I get is of rather extreme bullying. The legal threats and threats of blocking are obvious violations of ] and despite a sudden retraction, under duress, of the threats, I am not convinced of the sincerity of said retractions. ]]] 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	**Neither am I. The unblock request looks to me like the verbatim what they need to say to get immediately unblocked, followed by a series of rants about someone else being the problem, and then another insincere repeat of the verbatim text to get unblocked. Not at all sincere and I think the disruption would continue if they were unblocked.--v/r - ]] 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*{{edit conflict}} Faizhaider, you are in fact edit warring because you keep adding your preferred references although they have been challenged by several other users. All I can see on your part is ] ( does not state anything about the official status of any language) and edit warring about it . You are even being inconsistent in your editing since and you remove a statement that said that Urdu was in fact the co-offical language in AP while you keep pointing out that the AP public employment act will "still" be published in Urdu. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	===Propose topic bans===
	====Faizhaider====
	After reviewing Faizhaider's contributions at the article ], the discussion at ] and ] I conclude that Faizhaider is pushing a somewhat unclear agenda related to adding Urdu as one of the official languages in the current Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Regardless of the merit of sources provided by either side it has become evident that Faizhaider's edits to the article have become disruptive in a manner of edit warring, POV pushing and a lot of ] resulting in even more disruption and needless drama. As it happens, ] following the ] ruling cannot be applied on Faizhaider because he was not notified of this possible type of enforcement while editing the article. While a block would be justified for edit warring I would like to seek a solution that may last longer than some two or three days. I therefore propose a topic ban as follows: For the period of one month, Faizhaider must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. This discussion serves as notification for discretionary sanctions in the ARBIND case enabling further action. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban as proposer. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban per De728631's proposal. ] ] 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	====Visakha veera====
	Visaka veera has probably overreacted in the recent dispute with Faizhaider but seeing unblock request I fear he is simply walking the same road as Faizhaider, namely arguing ad nauseam that his sources ] while playing down the issue that led to his block. This makes me agree with Judasfax and TParis that Vv's retraction of the legal threat may not at all be sincere. Provided that the indefinite block of Visaka veera is lifted following his latest request or within four weeks from now I propose a topic ban of the same nature as the one for Faizhaider: For one month after his being unblocked, Visaka veera must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. Any failure to abide by this restriction or will result in an indefinite block per ] sanctions. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban as proposer. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban per De728631's proposal. ] ] 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Velebit ==
	A long indef-blocked tendentious editor has reappeared, yet again, at these IPs:
	* ] - from December 2013 until today
	* ] - from July 2013 until April 2014 (and two months later it was globally blocked as an open proxy)
	Earlier cases are documented at ]. The latest user I had suspected at ANI was ] - who went quiet soon after that, in May 2013.
	This has been going on since November 2005. Yes, you read that right - almost a decade now.
	I recommend we formally declare a site ban. --] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Velebit was indefinitely blocked eight years ago, and it's obvious that nobody's going to unblock him. We already consider this editor banned. ] (]) 23:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: I agree, but I'd prefer to have it in writing so I don't get any raised eyebrows when I detect and proceed to block him next time. --] (]) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::That is why de facto bans exist and are defined as such in the banning policy.—] (]) 01:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Even beside that, you can remind the eyebrow-raisers that the user in question is block-evading; ] is linked in the ]. But yes, as Ryulong says, that's policy; even such idiots as Willy on Wheels have never been banned by Arbcom or by Jimbo or by the community. ] (]) 03:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Thanks to both of you, but I still prefer having this quick discussion as opposed to depending on a small note from the banning policy. I take the other small note from it seriously - site bans are supposed to be a measure of last resort. --] (]) 06:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - Formalizing a ban on of this disruptive user will make it a little easier to block on sight. There doesn't seem to be any downside.- ]] 11:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{pagelinks|Netball}}
	There's an edit war going on at ], which looks to me like a flare up of the issues at the heart of ] (which is long, involved and I don't fully understand). I've reverted IPs here and on ] in the past, but all the current participants appear to be editors with sane edit histories. ] (]) 00:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:There is currently a discussion ongoing about categories, sparked by a recent ]. All the editors involved are quite sane. If racepacket shows up again, I will notify ] at once. ] (]) 02:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{archive top|result=Given that this is the ''fifth'' time this has occurred, I have closed the AFD and salted all three titles. And I'll simply block the named accounts per ]. ] 09:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	This editor is pushing the biographical article ] to be on Misplaced Pages. The article was first created through the ] process by an IP editor. It was subsequently by another editor, at which time I interjected myself and the page back to draftspace since it had not been reviewed by an AfC participant. ] then the submission. Then ] took it upon himself to the draft and the page back to mainspace.
	Since the submission was declined by an AfC participant with the decision of ], I the article at ] a second time and recommended in a comment there that if the article was deleted to ] it to prevent its recreation. ] also appears to have ] invoked, and he also to place a reviewer userbox on his userpage but he does not have that "right".
	He is passing himself off as an AfC reviewer, but he does not have the required time of service (90 days, his account is 5 days old), nor the number of edits (500, he has 30) required to be an AfC participant, which leads me to believe that it is an ] for the sole purpose of getting the subject on Misplaced Pages. ] ] </span>) 01:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*This is a problem because it has great potential to upset the editors who took the time and trouble to create articles at ]. Having an article accepted by an 'over enthusiastic' editor who does not meet the experience/expertise threshold and then having that undone, followed be re-acceptance, and AfD is not an experience that most new editors would wish to go through
	:They performed the same erroneous acceptance with ] which has been returned to Draft: space
	:I had previously asked the editor ] to cease, but it seems to no avail.
	:I have placed a firm and formal warning on their talk page, but have no confidence that it will be complied with. The mves themselves are easy to deal with. The problem is the aftermath of upsetting new editors that is impossible to solve. ] ] 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:*I have left a very clear message to this editor ] reinforcing the invitation to come here to contribute to the discussion. I suspect English not to be their first language, so have made the suggestion that they find a translator. ] ] 08:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	* We've already been here at least four times before, as well; see ] (3 tries at getting this article in), and also ] (identical), created by the same IP and promoted from AFCH by ], who am I guessing is the same person. ] 09:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== ] spamming passive-aggressive, sarcastic attempts to derail discussions, edit warring, and meatpuppetry ==
	{{archive top|Muffinator is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to ]. Furthermore, it speaks profoundly on ] that after this thread had already boomeranged without their intervention, their only comment was to suggest that the user who reported them was acting in good faith and only needed supervision. Parabolooidal - you're an outstanding person.--v/r - ]] 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	This user has repeatedly added comments of a sarcastic and passive-aggressive nature on multiple talk pages.
	*They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620042747|oldid=620042747|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620570490|oldid=620570490|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620572467|oldid=620572467|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620040556|oldid=620040556|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620019293|oldid=620019293|label=here}}, and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620036243|oldid=620036243|label=here}}.
	*] {{Diff|page=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology&diff=prev&oldid=620423221|oldid=620423221|label=here}} - attempting to recruit members of an otherwise uninvolved WikiProject.
	*Edit warring {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=next&oldid=620699902|oldid=620699902|label=here}} (reverted the page to their preferred version, then accused ''me'' of failing to verify consensus.)
	*They made personal digs at me {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620693487|oldid=620693487|label=here}} and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620042011|oldid=620042011|label=here}}, accusing me of inconsistency ("you edited page X but didn't make the same change to page Y" and "you added this page to category A but didn't add it to category B")
	*Additional passive-aggressive comments {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620037493|oldid=620037493|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620038393|oldid=620038393|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620039158|oldid=620039158|label=here}}, and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620042011|oldid=620042011|label=here}}.
	*I explained this on the user's talk page {{Diff|page=User_talk:Parabolooidal|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Parabolooidal&diff=620696693&oldid=620279134|oldid=620279134|label=here}}, which they responded to on an entirely different page {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620698678|oldid=620698678|label=here}}, claiming it was a threat, presumably because I mentioned that "disruptive editing may result in a suspension or ban." This demonstrates a lack of willingness to listen, which is why I feel that an administrator needs to be involved in order to correct the user's behavior.
	] (]) 02:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I took a quick look at each of the diffs in ''They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620042747|oldid=620042747|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620570490|oldid=620570490|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620572467|oldid=620572467|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620040556|oldid=620040556|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620019293|oldid=620019293|label=here}}, and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620036243|oldid=620036243|label=here}}.'' Each time, the material seems at least vaguely relevant. I don't see attempts to derail discussions. We needn't be concerned about passivity; I don't see aggressiveness or a worrying degree of sarcasm. I don't see behavior that needs to be "corrected". -- ] (]) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*]'s latest disruptive behavior is to remove the banners of (non-autism) projects that the user is not affiliated with, using misleading edit summaries and then demanding that the entire project get involved, as seen {{Diff|page=Talk:Dan_Olmsted|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dan_Olmsted&oldid=prev&diff=620817441|oldid=620817441|label=here}} and {{Diff|page=Talk%3AVideo_self-modeling|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AVideo_self-modeling&diff=620820917&oldid=620820578|oldid=620820578|label=here}}. ] (]) 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	===Muffinator and the topic of autism===
	::I am an involved editor. Muffinator seems to be adding his own personal wikiproject to talk pages based upon tenacious reasons, e.g. a source from a couple of scholars written decades after the subjects death. These additions have been questioned by multiple people on the talk pages, and on ]. Muffinator does not seem to argue the reasons for inclusion, rather than the right to include his wikiproject. He makes personal attacks whilst stating that he is refusing to discuss. Whilst making those attacks, he complains about attacks against himself. I have pointed him towards ], ] and ]. In this case I think we should be looking at ] in this case. ] 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The issue of the WikiProject banners themselves is already being discussed in multiple venues. I don't see the need to add it here too. The fact that you may agree with what side of the issue Parabolooidal sits on is no excuse for Parabolooidal's behavior. Martin, why do you insist on misrepresenting my statements and behavior? I ''have'' argued the reasons for inclusion multiple times; you just keep ''saying'' that I didn't. The first edit you mentioned is a warning about disruptive behavior made before the one on the user's talk page, not a personal attack. In the second HiLo48 calls me arrogant and stupid. That unambiguously ''is'' a personal attack. ] does not apply. ] (]) 03:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Do you really think calling another persons edits "childish" is not a personal attack? ] 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Again you're choosing to summarize my comment with the most negative interpretation possible. If you look at the comment as written, it is apparent that I was merely pointing out that I suspect the rationale of being sarcastic and not genuine. ] (]) 03:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Just checked the "meatpuppet" link which turned out to be a polite request for comment from psychology Wikipedians about this autism project. I am in agreement, this calls for a minor ]. ] ] 02:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I am pretty sure Psychology has a lot to do with autism. Hardly meat puppetry. ] (]) 03:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I'm an involved editor, but my take on this is that ] is attempting to set up wikiproject on autism as a social phenomenon but has failed to sufficiently distinguish autism as a social phenomenon from autism as a medical phenomenon and is swimming thus against the tide of a range of editors (including myself) with a long history of work enforcing ] / ]. My suggestion is that ] either switch to only working on what ] / ] can be found for or recast the wikiproject and it's tools using terms that clearly place it outside of medicine. ] (]) 03:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*Incoming ] in 5...4...3...2... <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Another involved editor here, who has found Muffinator quite confrontational and aggressive on this matter. I am one of many (obviously) who expressed concern over the unexplained addition of the Autism tag to article Talk pages. Despite the obviousness of this fact, at one stage he attempted to sweep aside my objections with a snide and mathematically incorrect comment that I was the only one possibly confused by the new tag, he had explained it to me, so the problem was solved. When I called him on this poor attitude and stupid statement, he called my post a personal attack and deleted it. Is the boomerang really on its way? I hope so. ] (]) 07:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Here are my suggestions: ban Muffinator from both (1) Adding ] or ] to biography articles and (2) Adding the Autism WikiProject banner to any article. Both behaviors are causing unnecessary disruption, and he has already invited hundreds of users to WikiProject Autism, any of whom could assist him with these tasks if they agreed with him at all. ] ] 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: I would second that, in view of my short—but unpleasant—exchange with Muffinator on my (, ) and their (from to ) user talk page. - ] (]) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I don't believe that I have ever interacted with Muffinator, but after reading through all this and the related talk pages that led to this, I have to agree that that a topic ban for her/him is appropriate. I also think that the topic ban should include the admonition that any breach(es) will lead to escalating blocks. Muffinator does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and needs to be given a clear, unambiguous warning that the community will not tolerate this sort of behaviour. - ] ] 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Please note that the hundreds of users I have invited to the project were found through an indiscriminate look at the autistic/Asperger Wikipedian categories (plus a few who I suspect of being "interested in the topic"). It is obvious from my contribution history that I have been simply going through the list alphabetically and not attempting meatpuppetry. I am indeed here to build an encyclopedia; if I have gotten sidetracked with issues like project banners, it's only because frivolous disputes feel like an interruption to me. Sometimes I only have time to either address the disputes or ignore them and work elsewhere, and either way I must invoke ] to do so. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	(involved editor) As already outlined, Muffinator has been adding tags to articles that are tangentially related to autism. As well, this editor has declared that ] does not apply to ] as, in his/her view it is not a medical condition. . In that same discussion at the High functioning Autism talk page (s)he as declared that a secondary source in a peer reviewed journal is not a reliable source. As well, in that discussion (s)he claimed that ] is a 'hate group'. This editor has, as well, been the subject of discussion at the medicine wikiproject, here. , these discussions were, again, about this editor's POV pushing that autism is not a medical condition. In this discussion at ] Muffinator once more claims that autism is not a disorder but a 'harmless neurological variant' and that the ] is not a reliable source. In short, I do not think this user is here to build an encyclopedia, but is here to ] and push a fringe POV that autism is not a medical disorder. I propose not just a ban on adding tags to articles but a topic ban for Muffinator from all autism related articles. ] (]) 11:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*All editors have opinions. I am not going to conceal what my opinions are ''on a talk page'' just because they are not ]- or ]-compliant. Notice that I did not ever remove ] from ] or delete any medicine-based sources, nor did I edit ] to state that it is a hate group. In fact, the only edits I recall making to that page were a change from "charity" to "organization" with an edit summary pointing out that "hate group" would also be POV, and a suggestion to merge the page with ]. Also, I stated that ''"Inclusion in the DSM" is not a reliable source'' for making judgments that the DSM itself doesn't make (], not that the DSM isn't a reliable source. Once again, my statements are being re-interpreted to fit another editor's opinion of me as a person. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Just looked at that WP Medicine talk page, and wow... he refuses to acknowledge even that the discussion is about him. Yes, having seen his viewpoint in action I would support a topic ban. ] ] 11:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes, I was looking at that earlier. Support topic ban for Muffinator. (I'm completely univolved) ] (]) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	* I have to add another '''Support''' a topic-ban from autism at this time. I have to say that my interactions with Muffinator haven't been 100% negative, I can point to at least one case where they appeared to back off after sourcing was provided that didn't support their position, and I thought their general idea of starting a WikiProject Autism was productive, or at least has the potential to be. But that's swallowed up by their lack of acceptance of sourcing guidelines as they apply to this topic area, their characterization of Autism Speaks--one of the largest and most influential autism advocacy organizations--as a "hate group", disruptively confrontational attitude in discussions regarding this topic area, and a general ] behavior (see their contribs to their User page to see the "sworn enemy" counter they're keeping). <code>]]</code> 16:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	**Although it wouldn't erase the page history, I am willing to delete the userbox altogether if the wikilink to ] (which has been there since the box's inception) isn't sufficient to point out that it is lighthearted hyperbole. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	***I don't know enough about the subject to judge, but calling Autism Speaks a hate group based on . So that in itself shouldn't raise any more red flags than e.g. calling the GOP a hate group (which we can all agree on, right?). Whether or not one's POV is righteous, however, does not affect whether one can push it. --] 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*] may be acting in good faith and perhaps just needs some supervision to prevent disruption as happened now at ] ] (]) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	**The move of the disability guide was a misuse of ] which I have acknowledged by putting my name in as supporting the proposal to move the page back. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban for whatever length of time is necessary. I don't think Muffinator, as an SPA, is here to build an encyclopedia. I have not personally edited any of the topic-wide articles and so perceive myself as an uninvolved editor, but I have noted the editor's behavior via threads on WikiProject Medicine. ] (]) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	**] is a hyperbolic accusation. I have demonstrated an interest in non-autism topics, and even if I hadn't, a narrow interest isn't the only criteria for SPA. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	***Muffinator, this discussion is over. If you want to appeal your topic ban, check out ] for your options. ] ] 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	***Muffinator, please be careful, this might be considered a violation of your topic ban. ] (]) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User Jim-Siduri is back as IP ==
	], who was ], is back . ] shows this is certainly his and the IP is fairly stable. Could we get a block on this IP as well, or possible page protection on his favorite targets? ] (]) 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	: Blocked IP two months for now. ] ]
	::One user, in the block discussion, recommended a ]. Since the editor appeared to be profoundly well-meaning but ], a ban did not seem appropriate. If there is further block evasion (sock-puppetry), it might be necessary to consider a ban. As it is, he has been told that he can make a standard offer in six months. If the block evasion continues, that will be off the table. ] (]) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User conduct ] ==
	I've tried to stand above it repeatedly, but yeah... this user's conduct of bad faith towards me is leaving me quite sour and annoyed. I wish for an administrator to evaluate the conduct of ] at ] per the ]. --] (]) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:This isn't necessary. Linking to a ] (]) is not a personal attack, although I agree it is bad faith. My mind is '''already''' made up on that, there is '''no''' point trying to change it. The end. ] (]) 05:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::As stated in ]...
	::*''"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"''. Check.
	::*''"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"''. Check. --] (]) 05:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::And that's why I said it didn't matter. You are bringing it up even though I said it didn't matter at that point. Again like I said, my mind is ''already'' made up, and there's no point changing that. So is ] not allowed to be cited as a policy? Yeah right, not. I have '''no''' intention of getting in a ] here. The discussion is over, we already reached a compromise, no need to unnecessarily drag it out at now. This is off-topic, unnecessary, and not helping your cause here. It's over already. ] (]) 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Oh no, a personal attack does not matter to you? Oh jeez... and I've explicitly requested evidence, but no... so I can't even defend myself and you expect me to just take it, while you went on and on with it (you know you pushed), despite my request to comment on content. --] (]) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I said it didn't matter but since you are still going on about it, the comments that I "thanked" you for on other articles, was what used to I base your ] on to me. The fact that you're continuing to go on about it re-enforced it to me, but I said it ''did not'' matter at that pont. You even said "Yes, it didn't matter and never did"... but then you bring it up ''again'' 4 paragraphs later. ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I had ignored your bad faith quickly , then suddenly you after it didn't went your way. Accusing me again with no explicit evidence or explanation and saying that it doesn't matter in one breath, what a load... Yet, you remove talk page comments, which include to evade scrutiny (for socking). This is clear. --] (]) 08:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::This was a reply to your also accusing me ''after'' I already agreed with you right . It's too late for you to go back that far now with what you're doing here anyway. This is still going around in circles. Just drop it. ] (]) 08:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, I asked how it was a POV that ''the numbers is a figure that Vietnam reported'' (which even the sources states). You decided to answers my question based on the editor and not the content, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove this fact and actually did, so you did hide this fact. --] (]) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::No, I said the sources all basically say the same thing and does not contradict each other. You're the one focusing on editor 4 paragraphs later, after you and I said it didn't matter, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove the Chinese casualties and actually did. This is becoming hypocritical and still going around in circles. Again, it's best to just drop it. ] (]) 09:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The diffs are self-explanatory, that you did focus on contributor rather than content. Secondly, I removed numbers of Chinese losses and causulties, because this was uncited (or do you casually forget to mention this, I don't see you contest it); this is a non-issue that you try to spin into me having COI. On the other hand, you removed cited information while focusing on claiming that I had COI. --] (]) 14:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You're the one focusing on contributor rather than content, the diffs are self-explanatory. I keep saying your conflict of interest ''does not matter'', so the fact that you keep talking about it only re-enforces to me what I said even more. Like I said, the sources say the same thing and do not contradict each other in this case. And you're also removing that the ships sunk are a Chinese source. I did not revert the majority of your edits obviously, although I do keep bringing it up such as now. I do not want to get in an edit war or battle ground with you. You can just put citation needed instead of removing it altogether. This is an issue obviously. I don't see this happening on Iraq War, Vetnam War, Afghan War, etc which has the figures that their countries reported, which you choose to ignore. Your own arguments applies to yourself big time. Again, drop it, this is not going anywhere. ] (]) 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	The user also has the habit of removing talk page comments (that he/she does not like)—as was the case (in this case to avoid ], yet scrutinize my edits with no diffs provided)—which but also when (in case there's doubt about the sock connection ). . --] (]) 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:And this is becoming ] at this point. OK then, what is your point in this case? What does WP:SCRUTINY have do ? ] (]) 06:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::The difference is that I can substantiate my comments without lacking evidence. You are repeatedly accusing me (and I tried to ignore it as evidenced by that talk page, but you don't know when to stop commenting on editor rather than content) and removing my talk page comments (similar behavior during your socking period). Also to your earlier comment, the content discussion is not over, since I've requested comments from the three relevant Wikiprojects (but that's not why we are here). --] (]) 06:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::And I could've easily started ] account also. By the way, this is not helping your cause. Again, are you going to answer my question? What's the point of this? You are also being hypocritical here. You tried to ignore what? WP:COI? I said that didn't matter and then you brought it up again 5 paragraphs later. Your own argument about personal attacks applies to yourself right here. This is becoming ] and ]. ] (]) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The admin can see for himself/herself how often you tried to push me (leading to this), while I kept mentioning to comment on content instead. You also wouldn't meet the criteria for ] by the way, because it's shown above that you have still have your old behavior (such as removing talkpage comments) and evading scrutiny. --] (]) 06:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::What does socking have to do with this? That's already over. And yes, I ''do'' also meet the criteria ]. I have ''no'' sanctions against me and I am ''allowed'' to remove . There is no evading strutiny here. You are in the the wrong in this instance. ] (]) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::This is not some random accusation without evidence; it is a fact that you socked. My main point was to highlight the sanctimoniousness of this ordeal (that is, that you socked and give bad faith to those who oppose you without evidence). And still... You removed a talk page comment to try avoid scrutiny; it should be reinstated. --] (]) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::So, I socked over year ago, I was new. It's already over, the issue already solved. What does that have to do with this? And I said WP:COI didn't matter and you want to still go on about it. This is going around in circles again. By the way, read ]. ] (])
	::::::::Yet, you still display the same behavior as then (despite given a second chance), removing my talk comments. Notwithstanding that you were out of line when you made it a point to focus on your unsubstantiated allegation of COI rather than the content. --] (]) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I am allowed to remove personal attacks. Linking to a policy is not a personal attack and I even said that it didn't matter at that point. You're the one still focusing on it. A compromise has already been reached on the content, so there is not anthing to comment on. This is still going around in circles. ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	@], it's best if we avoid each other completely. This is obviously not going work between us as evidenced here. ] (]) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I was not planning on meeting again, not unfounded bad-faith'd people, that's for sure. --] (]) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Yeah, and you're not helping your cause here, that's for sure. You should also read ], and dial it back a bit. ] (]) 07:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I'm blunt, yes, but not without a a ground to stand. You even admitted that it was in bad faith and that you will continue with it (second comment in this discussion). --] (]) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::I said my own mind was made up and there's no attempting to change it. I also keep sayng it does ''not'' matter, and so did you before you decided to refocus on it again four paragraphs later on the talk page. ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User conduct: ] making bad faith reports to ] ==
	I am not sure why, but this editor has made a of reports recently (within the past day or so) to ] that had no merit, even going so far as to report accounts with no edits - , , , , , , and. report was questionable, as was one, which was reported as promotional, but that editor wasn't making promotional edits, just edits to basketball related articles. was reported ("without much doubt") as promotional for Winston cigarettes, yet that editor was nowhere near that topic. He even went so far as to a Wikimedia Foundation member! Then there are these "Osama" related reports - , , , , and, which these accounts either have no edits, or fewer than five in as many years.
	I think this conduct is disruptive to the project and just wastes the time of the admins who patrol that page because they then have to investigate the editor(s) reported in order to validate the report. As you can see from the first diff I posted, a lot were declined based on the fact that they didn't violate the username policy. ] ] </span>) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	: Why would you characterize these reports as "bad faith"? Bad faith doesn't mean "I think it was wrong", it's much more akin to "malicious" or "trolling". He nominated a lot of Nazi-themed account names, and that's hardly bad faith. It might not show good judgment, but it's almost certainly good faith. ] (]) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I feel there has to be clear evidence as to the validity of the report. In these cases, it was (mostly) a "blanket" report with no thought given as to checking if the account made any edits (promotional or not) to determine if the username was indeed against policy. It certainly wasn't ] on the part of the editor(s) being reported, IMO. ] ] </span>) 07:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::: Yes, it looks like he himself failed to assume good faith. But I think he honestly believed the usernames were against policy. His judgment was poor, and his understanding of policy is, at best, flawed. He should probably take a voluntary break from UAA before someone suggests a mandatory one. ] (]) 08:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*See also ] where activity concerning Nazis and creating redirects (two topics) by Hoops gza was briefly discussed. It appears that there is too much frenetic activity without a commensurate degree of understanding. ] (]) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*We all make mistakes, but his volume is such that he seems to be swamping the noticeboard with a lot of pointless reports. Not all, by any means, but a lot. I think he should be strongly encouraged to slow down and be much more careful. reporting of ] was rather bizarre. ] (]) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	* {{Nao}} I was brought here by a ping on DeltaQuad's talk page based on a {{Tps}} comment I made in regards to the fact that I would create most of these accounts as an account creator through ACC as AGF. Looking over this user's talk page, and seeing that this has been an ongoing problem for over three months now, I'm not sure that AGF still applies to this user continuously making this same mistake over and over and over and tl;dr... I saw that at least three or four administrators has ], and it appeared that two months ago the user did. Then, out of the blue so to speak, ]. Other than this difficulty with UAA, the user seems to be mostly a half decent (albeit new and naive) editor, and my personal thoughts is that a simple topic ban would hopefully resolve the issue. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*:Agreed. Some of these are understandable; an obvious reference to Hitler is obvious. But many of these are egregiously bad reports. Anyone with "KL" as their initials is going to draw scrutiny? What's next, a user can't name him/herself after their boat because it might have the initials "SS" in it? And calling "Winstonisthebest" clearly promotional? {{facepalm}} Perhaps a break is in order here. --<font face="Book Antiqua">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 19:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	I have reported usernames of Nazis because they are highly offensive. I believe that ''those'' usernames should be blocked on sight. Am I missing something? I will refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts that are currently active until this is resolved. - ] (]) 15:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	: Hang on. Even once the ridiculousness of your filings has been pointed out to you, on multiple venues including this one, you're '''still''' insisting that Wikimedia employee is a "Nazi" with a "highly offensive" name? WTF. ] (]) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::Just because you are biased against the Nazis doesn't mean they are against the username policy. ] ] </span>) 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Wait, what? Hmm, this is starting to get weird. First, full disclosure: I'm "biased against the Nazis," too. ArcAngel, surely I've misunderstood you: you do understand that any username that actually ''does'' suggest a Nazi affiliation ''is'' against our policy for disruptive or offensive usernames -- right? The question before us is these rather imaginary, Nazi-usernames-everywhere issue -- right? I'm sure that's so. Hoops gza, as for you, I don't see what kind of "resolution" you're looking for: you should take this as a warning to "refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts" ''now and henceforth'', and stop wasting people's time. If you don't, you'll just be topic banned for lack of ] in this area, and surely you don't want that. ] (]) 21:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::No, I wasn't aware of that policy, thanks for clarifying that. The way Hoops worded his statement made it seem like he was Nazi-biased. It just seems like any name or combination of initials with a ''historical Nazi tie'' he was reporting, even if it is/was genuinely a current person's name (as in the case of the WMF member). I aldo don't think he should be allowed to warn editors directly if there is no issue (as in case, where a 'crat and said the name was fine). ] ] </span>) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Also, as I've stated numerous times in talk page messages to Hoops, ''please'' also refrain from reporting accounts that have never been used or have not edited in years, unless they are blatantly obvious violations (eg. a user name of "FuckYou" or something of the sort). ] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{ping|ArcAngel}} We also do not allow usernames to be named after bands or musical artists. {{ping|Shawn in Montreal}} I need some more clarity on what I may report. There are admins who have declined the '''usernames that actually ''do'' suggest a Nazi affiliation''' on the grounds that they are stale or have not edited. There are also two very close variations on ]'s name (changing a single letter in the name, for instance) that were declined for similar reasons. Who cares if these are stale, they are grievous violations. - ] (]) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	Connormah, you declined various Adolf Hitlers. - ] (]) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:{{ping|Hoops gza}} I see nothing in ] that ''explicitly'' states that that usernames that contain names of bands or musical artists are disallowed. I suppose they would be covered under the "groups" provision, but in my view usernames such as Vanhalenisabest, or Journeyrocks are not in violation of the policy. ] ] </span>) 22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Concerning usernames that have not been used in a long time, they really shouldn't be reported to WP:UAA even if they are egregious policy violations. Such abandoned accounts do no harm whatsoever to Misplaced Pages, and reporting them just makes more work for the admins that deal with username issues (who should otherwise be dealing with current username issues). As the WP:UAA instructions prominently display, "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined." If you disagree with those instructions, it would be better to get consensus to change them rather than repeatedly violate them. -- ] (]) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	Can we not be username nazis here, please? --] 22:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User violating WP:No original research ==
	{{U|Richard Harvey}} insists on inserting ] into ]. This image was uploaded as the sole edit by it's uploader without any sources. Richard Harvey argued in the that since Montserrat is a member of the that means they must have one, but that was inconclusive. In fact, another British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena does not have a local red ensign even though it is a member of that organisation, so using the organisation's membership as the sole source even when it does not directly say Montserrat has a red ensign is inappropriate. In their most recent re-insertion of this image, Richard Harvey added even more by claiming Montserrat is simply entitled to a red ensign (instead of them being granted) and that they have an unofficial one already. There are no sources of any sort to support that this flag exists in any manner, several which infer the exact opposite, and it therefore violates policy and can not be on that article. I am asking for an admin to remove the image. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 08:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:First off please note that I am not the uploader of the image to the article and I am neutral in its usage and have not violated the 'Neutral Research' policy. I have been caught up in this as a Reviewer, whilst attempting to authenticate the flags validity. This is purely a content dispute that should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, as I advised Fry1989 on my ]. However it seems he prefers to use Administrators to achieve his aims. There are several images in the article that are unofficial, but kept as useful, this image is no different. I have previously added a supporting reference from the red ensign group website, which officially states that Montserrat is a member of the British Red Ensign Group and entitled to fly a Red Ensign on their ships. I have today reverted a deletion of the image by ] and reworded the entry to advise it is an example image that has been uploaded by ]. It should be noted that ] has attempted twice to have the image deleted by Admins at to prevent its use in the article; and is currently attempting again to have the previous Admins decisions reversed. On that deletion request I have stated my own interpretation of the authority to use a red ensign (in the reference from the Red Ensign Website):- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. There is also this statement on the British Government website which states the same:-
	*The Red Ensign Group (REG) is a group of British shipping registers.
	*The registers are operated by:
	:*the UK
	:*the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey)
	:*UK Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar; Montserrat, St Helena, Turks & Caicos Islands)
	*Any vessel on these registers is a ‘British ship’, and is entitled to fly the British Merchant Shipping flag the ‘Red Ensign’ (or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour).
	I am therefore believe the use of the image in the article is valid. ] (]) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::These points raised by Richard Harvey were already discussed in the file's DR, and there is nothing that supports the idea that being a member of the Red Ensign Group automatically means that a member has their own red ensign. As I stated, Saint Helena is a member but they '''do not''' have their own red ensign, they use the undefaced ]. Jersey is also a member but they were only their own red ensign in 2010 which supports that red ensigns must be <u>granted</u> or <u>adopted</u> by order. There is no evidence that Montserrat has ever been granted or adopted a local red ensign. FOTW is considered a reliable source and they do not show Montserrat having a red ensign, and neither do other trusted flag websites. I can't find this flag on any flag shop website, I can't even find any photos of unofficial ones. There is simply ZERO sources that this flag exists in any capacity. It is original research that is completely unsourced and most likely the imagination of the uploader. It can not be used according to ]
	::As for Richard Harvey's false bad faith allegations, let me make it clear I am not trying to get the file deleted to prevent it's use on Misplaced Pages, rather it is the opposite. It keeps getting kept in that DR because Richard Harvey keeps re-inserting it on Misplaced Pages articles without sources. I have stated that I will be more than happy to create an SVG version of the image, should even a single source supporting that this flag exists ever arise, but there are none at this time. The file is fake that is pretending to be real and is therefore deliberately misleading which is a valid reason for deletion on Commons. The outcome of the DR is irrelevant however, because Misplaced Pages has it's own policies that apply to this situation. The image can not be used at this time. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I'll make a brief note that although Montserrat was permitted to have and use a Red Ensign per the permissions that were granted to it by virtue of it being part of the REG, you are correct that the existence of a Montserrat version of the flag is in doubt. In all actuality, ships registered to Montserrat would only fly the standard non-defaced Red Ensign. I've just spent the last 15min or so looking around on the net and have not found any reliable source that indicates the existence of a Montserrat defaced Red Ensign. I would agree that the image cannot be used at this time until a reliable corroborative source has been found. ] (]) 19:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I've been having a poke around trying to see if I can get a WP:RS for the flag. Tentatively, I've so far found that an image from a non-RS site (it's on eBay) that corroborates Richard Harvey's view that Montserrat does indeed have a red ensign. I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find. At this point, I'd put it up for FFD and see what others come up with. ] (]) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::eBay has many imaginary and fake things, that does not support that this flag is real in any capacity, especially if that is the only sole image that can be found of it outside of the JPEG that was uploaded to Commons. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== List of people known as The Great ==
	An IP refuses to accept that several persons they have added to the list do not qualify. Now that IP has vandalized my user page. ] (]) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:*{{la|List of people known as The Great}}
	:*{{IPuser|223.204.35.184}}
	:The last edit on the article talk page was in February 2013. ] (]) 11:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*CF's user page and the article semi-protected for a week, and IP's blocked for a week. I have no idea if the IP's '''content''' is OK or not - that's for the article talk page - but if they are not going to discuss, and are going to vandalize, then I guess it isn't going into the article, at least for a week. --] (]) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:*Thanks. That list gets a lot of reversions because people don't realize it's specifically for people who are called "the Great", not great people. There was no such claim in the three articles in question. ] (]) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== User SecretJournalsofCongress ==
	{{archivetop|Indef blocked by ]. ] <small>(])</small> 15:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}}
	Someone needs to look at the Talk pages of ]. This user, although having been asked to calm down, is producing completely OTT edits there. His/her words seem to be racist and religionist. ] (]) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Wow..... just wow. It seems we have an anti Semite, Holocaust denier and, well, other stuff. Serious case of ]. ] (]) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::No, I think that he is above all an anti-Catholic troll (if I understood well what he wrote :-)). Anyway, on that page what he is writing is definitely ]. ] (]) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yeah maybe you are right. Nonetheless, serious competence issues. ] (]) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::<small>So this user is ]?</small> Might as well ignore until he starts editing mainspace, and then we need not wait to block. ] (]) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== Continued incivility by Knight of BAAWA ==
	] was on July 11 for "], ] and ]." Since his return, he has continued this behavior, including not-so-stealthily using the same insult that contributed to his temporary block (''statist'').
	— ] (] &#124; ]) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Well I am certainly seeing some failure to assume good faith. This sort of behavior can be very disruptive in contentious area. While I personally don't want to take admin action in this area due t lack of knowledge of the surrounding subject and discussion perhaps another admin more versed in the dispute can take a closer look?
	:{{u|Callanecc}} may have some perspective being the prior admin to block this user. ] 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== IP insists on adding country identification for places like ] ==
			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)
	The IP user ] shows a strong and long-standing pattern of insisting on adding country identification to the names of U.S. places such as ], despite being repeatedly informed of relevant Misplaced Pages consensus indicating otherwise as recorded at ] / ]. The user has been warned repeatedly (e.g. at ]) and previously blocked for such behavior, but seems to just that the practice is appropriate and is continuing the behavior, including today. The user also appears to have tried to disguise such action using a . —] (]) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations ==
	*I agree with the IP. Why would we omit the country name just because the United States is involved? --] (]) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:*Commonname, utility, redundancy. State names (Georgia excepted) are unique signifiers while the national name is not. In other words, it's because ] is a unique placename while ] is a useless one, and ] fails all relevant naming conventions. --] <small>]</small> 18:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*I'm not sure I agree with the IP, but naming conventions are solely about the name of an article, not how it's referred to in other articles (]). And the IP's change of ] to ], Illinois is ]. --] 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:This is not the place to discuss ], its parents, or its children. This is a place for administrator attention, which seems like a very limited scope problem, discussion of which should not require discussing place names at all. ] (]) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:I don't see the reasoning behind adding the ''United States'' to American places, when AFAIK we're (for example) excluding ''United Kingdom'' from British places. We need consistancy (if possible) for including/excluding sovereign states, in these situations. ] (]) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::This is different from WP:USPLACE, which governs page ''names'', not page contents. Excluding the country from an article is an oversight if unintentional, and downright disruptive if intentional, because we are an international encyclopedia. Administrator attention has been attracted, and administrator tools will be used to enforce ] when people intentionally violate it. ] (]) 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::I agree that country names in these instances are unnecessary and merely add clutter, but that is almost beside the point. I think the matter has been brought to ANI for administrator attention because we have an editor who 1) persistently makes a kind of edit that is routinely reverted; 2) ignores admonitions of various editors to discontinue that kind of edit; 3) has already been blocked once for the same kind of edit and 4) has now at least once misrepresented the nature of his edits in the edit summary. ] (]) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::The IP editor is correct. It would be very foolish to ask for admin action against them. --] (]) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, the IP is correct; country name ''should'' be included. GD, for British places something like 'X, England' or 'Y, Wales' is preferable to 'Z, United Kingdom'. ]] 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I'm merely recommending 'across the board' consistancy. Either we include the sovereign state, or we don't. I'm not picky about which, just wish them to be consistant. For example: ''Cardiff, Wales'' is alright, as long as we have ''Toronto, Ontario'' or ''Austin, Texas'', etc.] (]) 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::]. --]''''']''''' 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:It's been like a month since the IP did any of that work. It is funny to see the country name listed for cities that are globally known. Chicago, Illinois, USA - as opposed to Chicago, Illinois, Luxembourg, for example. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::It has not been a month. was today. But I'm starting to think those edits generally pale in comparison to about 15 new edits by ] since this conversation began here. —] (]) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::Why's that then? --] (]) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Speaking only for myself, I would say it's because - to my eyes - an IP was blocked for adding what seemed to be cluttery, inessential information to articles on the strength of a policy (]) that does not, on its face, demand such precision; and, when the matter was brought to ANI, Nyttend's response was to routinely restore the edits (and more) for which the IP was blocked. Now, perhaps this is all ancient water under the bridge for those who've been with the project from its inception (and who suffered through the debates) and to them the proper course of action is obvious, but I'm not exactly a novice, and the answer is not quite so clear to me, and it is - well, dispiriting to be told (albeit indirectly) that I threaten being "disruptive" by trying to reason through this. ] (]) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::{{ec}} The reason I said that is that those edits by Nyttend appear to be responsive to this conversation and are reverting the actions of several editors on this subject without waiting for the discussion to unfold and consensus to be clarified (and because they include the helpful clarification that ] is in the United States, for those readers of articles about American professors who might not be aware of that). And because many of the edit summaries include the imperative command "do not remove", which looks like an attempt to use forceful language to achieve what cooperative consensus building might not. —] (]) 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::I am unpersuaded by the argument that "United States" needs to be added after the first mention of any U.S. state, or "Canada" after the name of any Canadian province (and so on down the line) because "not all readers are from country X". The issue isn't nation-centrism but rather whether a particular place is likely to be so unfamiliar to English-speaking readers that it demands further disambiguation. In many, many cases the additional information is just so much clutter, particularly since the state name will be wikilinked the first time through and anyone who is not sure where to find "]" or "]" can easily click through to find out. ] (]) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::In that case, feel free to make such a proposal at the appropriate place. Bear in mind that our articles have to make sense in print where there are no links. --] (]) 19:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::That is why I noted above that administrative tools will be used, if necessary, to enforce WP:CONTEXTLINK and to ensure that intentional disruption be prevented. ] (]) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{ec}}I may do that, but I'm not sure where. Not under article naming conventions, where country names are already (sensibly) not required in article names. And though ] is cited above as demanding country names to accompany state / province names, it strikes me as anything but definitive, noting merely generally that "an article about a building or location should include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part" and using as an example, not (e.g.) "Austin, Texas, United States" but rather Arugam Bay. I appreciate that the views here are strongly held but (so far) am not clear on where this particular protocol has been established. ] (]) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::::::] not only says nothing explicitly about this issue, it also provides an example of appropriate phrasing in which "Moscow" is not clarified with a country identifier. —] (]) 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}Since this matter is not going to result in administrative action, it will shortly be closed here and archived. Before that happens, I would like advice about where to continue discussion of this issue. To my eyes (and evidently those of a few other editors as well) neither style or nor Misplaced Pages policy mandates the reflexive, invariant inclusion of country names alongside states or provinces or other well-known political subdivisions. And - if, well, style or policy does, I'd like to know where it is set forth so that I can make the case that it shouldn't. Thanks. ] (]) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*What I mainly want to know is why {{ping|Nyttend}} has gone thru reverting a whole bunch of months old edits of mine... --]''''']''''' 22:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			Dear admins,
	== User talk:151.56.11.27 and "The List of non existent recording" (''sic'') - Advice sought ==
			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.
	] and I have been discussing the behaviour of the above name IP editor in adding recordings to the "Recordings" sections of opera articles. After being challenged to produce evidence that these recordings exist, and with no reply forthcoming and based on our own research of likely sources, many of these have been removed from the articles themselves. But today, this editor added "The List of Non existent recording" (''sic'') to his/her/their "Talk" page.
			I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time.
	Just a few minutes ago, another recording was added to the "List" but not to the article. A warning has been given. How do we proceed? Keep giving warnings? Is it legitimate for any editor to use his/her own Talk page to create fictional lists of this sort? ] (]) 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:] 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)
	== Hyper Criticus, possibly another sock of ] ==
			::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)
	Since creating their account today, {{u|Hyper Criticus}} has been making tedious syntax changes solely to articles I've edited most recently, which I'm assuming they've gotten from my contributions list. , , , , and so on. of theirs to another article I had edited minutes prior to their edit was reverted by another editor, although Hyper Criticus did not react with the same hostility as they had when attacking me and . ] (]) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			== 69.121.183.150 ==
	: The frustration they express and the nature of their changes (frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes to articles I've contributed to significantly or just simply recent ones shown up at my contributions page) suggest another in a series of socks that have been popping up over the past week or so since {{u|Harmelodix}} was blocked as a ], the most recent being {{u|EastCoaster007}} and {{u|CountGramula}}. Either way, admin intervention will be helpful; I don't feel like getting into an edit war with an editor I have no faith will be responsive to any serious discussion about their edits. ] (]) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*Hmm, so your prose sucks donkey balls... You Americans come up with such funny expressions. ] (]) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	*OK, I was going to block but good old {{U|Kww}} beat me to it. Thanks Kevin. As for the "frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes", well, I'm sorry, but Jazzerino is, on occasion, a very decent writer, and those changes, right or wrong, aren't frivolous. I hope Kevin doesn't use mass rollback. Anyway, this one's blocked, and we wait for the next one. Take it easy Dan, ] (]) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Eyes on Robin Williams, please ==
			I.P editor has a history of serial blanking/section blanking edits on articles as an attempting to delete/merge/redirect without discussion ]. Has refused attempts to encourage consensus seeking. AIV sent me here ] (]) 05:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Could any free editors keep their eyes on ] for the next bit? Not sure if pre-emptive RPP is a good idea, but I'll have a weather eye out myself and will send it there if necessary. Thanks. --] (]) 23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	: FYI the article has been placed under full protection for 12 hrs due to concerns about the rate of editing. --] (]) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
	::There's certainly no new information at this point. CNN is already into its loop of reporting the same story over and over, filling the gaps with quick interviews of those who knew him. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:18, 23 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

• 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)

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

support indef per the doubling down above of the Battleground Mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Edward Myer

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

Edward Myer was recently blocked for two weeks, for creating a sock account to retaliate against myself and another AfC reviewer whose reviews they didn't like. (The socking was just the tip of the iceberg, there's much more to this as their talk page shows.) That block expired a few days ago, and since then they're back on the war footing, complaining and insinuating here, there and everywhere; as well as posting similar stuff on the talk pages of UtherSRG, 28bytes and AmandaNP. I think this needs to stop; for one thing it's a time sink, and I for one really don't care for the belligerence. I don't think I should be the one to indef them, as I'm involved, but I'd be grateful if someone did. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I am not involved except insofar as I have declined Draft:Bruse Wane, but I saw their behaviour towards others and it made me consider whether I would make a review, especially to decline. A less resilient reviewer might well have avoided it.

I confess that I am waiting for the invective, and I support DoubleGrazing's well measured request on that basis.

My view is for one final attempt in case they are educable. If they are not then 'final' should mean 'indefinite editing restrictions' 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They have been WP:FORUMSHOPPING, . it seems like they simply dislike what many editors are saying. Previously blocked for sock activity. They also are also now actively editing a fork of the draft article over at User:Edward Myer/sandbox. Seems like they have been given plenty of changes to do the right thing. (talk) TiggerJay (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the sandbox may have a better shot at acceptance! I aways believe in extending my good faith as far as possible. I have seen some remarkable turnarounds by doing so. Obviously there comes a point, but I am not wholly sure we are there yet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative in filing this ANI, DG; I was || this close to filing it myself. This user just doesn't get it. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. Edward Myer (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The above post is a duplicate of that posted at Help Desk. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and just wanting to push an article to mainspace and WP:IAR without even citing such. Sounds like a longer block may be necessary. TiggerJay (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Edward Myer, this is serious. Have you read over this complaint? Can you let this grudge go and go on to do some productive editing and let the past be the past? If you continue on this path, I don't see you editing on Misplaced Pages for the long term. This is a moment where you can choose to change your approach and turn around you time here as an editor. But it is up to your willingness to do so. Does that sound like something you can and want to do? Liz 02:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  My field of expertise is Hip Hop. I do intend to do other articles on other subjects, and add relevant updates to current live articles. I'm here to be apart of the community and contribute to[REDACTED] in a specific field that I'm passionate about. I hold no grudge or ill will for no one. As I said to LiZ I had to get adjusted to how communication on[REDACTED] works. Edward Myer (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Before any action is taken, I have made a substantial offer of assistance to Edward Myer on their user talk page. I am no-one special to make the offer, and I would like us to take a little time to see if it can be effective before reaching any conclusion. I have had some success before with helping editors who are in pain here. The offer is in the spirit of my early post in this thread. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 07:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. Edward Myer (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We have started to work together. May I suggest respectfully that any other matters be set aside for the duration? They can always be returned to if deemed necessary. My hope is that editors will not feel it to be necessary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 20 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)

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)

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)

Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8)

Blocks guaranteed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

The IP 58.235.154.8 was banned on December 29, 2024 (6 month block duration) for disruptive editing. To be specific, they would write in a delay of a Starship launch by exactly one month, without any citations.

They had been banned before (two month ban) for the same behaviour.

A few examples that I sourced in my report of 58.235.154.8:

IP 211.184.93.253 is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion.

Out of the five edits made by this IP:

Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source.

Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added.

Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.

Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added.

Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.

This is either a similarly disruptive editor, or more likely, a ban evader continuing their vandalism. Either way, they are not here to improve Misplaced Pages. Redacted II (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban.

Geolocate 1

Geolocate 2 Redacted II (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for putting together such an easy to follow report. I've blocked them for the same length of time as their original IP account. If this becomes a habit, it might be easier to semi-protect certain articles temporarily. You probably know where to go to request that action to be taken. Liz 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. Redacted II (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:RPP Rusalkii (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Redacted II (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (added after discussion close)

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

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)

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)

69.121.183.150

I.P editor has a history of serial blanking/section blanking edits on articles as an attempting to delete/merge/redirect without discussion an example on this article]. Has refused attempts to encourage consensus seeking. AIV sent me here Flat Out (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards