Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:12, 9 November 2015 editOp47 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,674 edits →Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks: support ban← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:55, 22 January 2025 edit undoBluethricecreamman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,320 edits →Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmileTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{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 = 800K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 904 |counter = 1177
|algo = old(72h) |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=72
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 7
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
}} --><!--
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------>


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


* was deleted for ]
I am notifying ] and ]. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check ] to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff , they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in ], ] and ].-- ] (]) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


* on ] and ] grounds
:Actually, Flushout1999 is hitting a trifect on those article. ] - on Harvest of Sorrow, he's got a criticism section which is six times the length of the rest of the article, misrepresenting sources - the sources actually give a positive reviews to the book but Flushout1999 has managed to cherry pick single sentences or out of context quotations to make it seem like the sources are critical of the book, and to top it all of ] where they copy paste entire paragraphs (cherry picked of course) from the sources. In particular they've been told about ], they've been warned about it, but none the less persist in re-adding copyvio material. I suggest an indef block until the user acknowledges that we have a policy on copyright and promises to respect it.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


* on ] and ]
::A discussion recently started ; here is . Then was filed by another user. a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. ] (]) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone ''is'' going to have to through Misplaced Pages and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Misplaced Pages is to try to discredit ] (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::::MastCell, Volunteer Marek, and My Very Best Wishes are correct. Flushout1999 is editing contrary to policy and looks like he isn't here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


*They've been warned about ] and .
::::: Just had the unfortunate experience of looking through User:Flushout1999's recent edits. Propose either block or topic ban for Flushout1999 until he can behave himself. ] (]) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
::::::This is just looking to me as a cherry picking of old diff in order to put myself in a bad light and imply that I am in bad faith. I ask the administrators to go through the entire talks that have been reported here. The editors here are just now working as a team in order to have my edits deleted definitively, because they share the same point of view on these particular topics.
::::::My edits were all well sourced with reliable sources, if there was copyvio is because I am still new here and I had not time to read all the policies until few days ago (see my contributions to verify, still few and on few pages). Here all these users are just looking for a way to punish me as I have been too "bold" in their opinion. They actually know and are aknowledging that the facts I reported in my edits are well sourced and real, but nonetheless they are always looking for new ways in order to delete my edits. What happened here is that they never assumed good faith since the beginning, go in ], you will see a persistent constant attack towards me with allegations of "having an agenda" (perhaps, just to improve the article?) and claims of being marked with a "sin". While what you see in ] it looks to me like just a hidden vandalism (]: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages") as they don't delete only what they claim should not stay there (for copyvio and not RS) but everything everytime. And, moreover, they don't improve the page in any form, just reverting it to a stub.
::::::This is, in actual facts, POV pushing of their own personal point of view and a form of ] editing as they want to be present in the articles only what is according to their own personal point of view. Moreover ] and ] are now working as a team in order to delete my edits in ] and discourage me to correct eventual issues on my edits. What I see it's just a distortion and misuse of the[REDACTED] policies in order to not have others editors going ahead with the edits they dislike (as these edits are not in agreement with their own personal point of view) even if, in the final outcome, these edits would comply with the[REDACTED] policies. In fact they are just working as political partisans here on wikipedia, in order to not have reported important facts that they dislike while knowing they really did happen. -- ] (]) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Boomerang block (48 hours) for ] at ANI and tendentious editing with a refusal to accept consensus or drop the stick. Hard to take you serious when you have refused to follow policies such as copyright under the claim that you are new. You began editing in July 2013. We don't appreciate having our time wasted collectively with such tripe. There is currently an article which is full-protected for a week because of you and I'm surprised that you didn't get blocked then. Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone would leave a neutrally-worded request on the talk pages of the three pertinent WikiProjects for more input into future discussion. This may relieve the editors that have been dealing with this and get more eyes on those articles.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
:Oh please...I never went to this noticeboard in order to not be blocked, in fact I was expecting to be blocked because of the copyvio. If the[REDACTED] rules state that you get a block when you commit copyvio more than one time then it's really fine to me! Mine was not an excuse in order to not be blocked, it was only an explanation of how it happened!
:I did not came here to not be blocked, I came here for a totally different purpose: to address the fact of the presence of "political partisans" who are doing whatever is possible to have important and undisputable facts omitted and deleted from the articles pages, who are distorting and using policies (such as WP:CONSENSUS for example, but also WP:RS) in order to have only their own personal point of view be present in the articles. For this reason, as I have more time, I will continue to write in the talk pages of those articles bringing again and again more new sources and proofs of the facts which I believe deserve to be present in those articles. And of course I will refrain to make new edits on those page if there is no consensus.
:Let's see what happens! Maybe I could be wrong and mine is only a misperception! I would be very very glad to give my apologies if I'll be proved wrong! -- ] (]) 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
::If I summarise your comment, {{u|Flushout1999}}, it reads as "I'm assuming bad faith until proven wrong." What I am reading in your editing pattern and general behaviour on Misplaced Pages is that it is you who is the partisan editor here to ]. Being here to test other editors on how far you can push your POV before you point your finger at them and accuse them of obstructing your attempts to get at ] = you're ]. --] (]) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Hi Iryna, until the other users assume bad faith towards me, I'll just repay them with the same money, if they are not going to change this attitude of theirs towards me. Until now, they had only demonstrate that they simply wanted to cancel my edits since the beginning, as well put out by MasterCell comments .
:::I accepted the block without protesting and, of course, I assume all the responsability for the copyvio which I accidentally made, but this is something that will be so easy to resolve in the near future and in my future edits, that I really believe now the issue is another.
:::For example, in ] is written clearly:
:::"'''''we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources''''', ''giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true,'' '''''it must be verifiable before you can add it'''''."
:::Everything was very verifiable and from reliable sources, and when the sources are primary (like it can be Conquest himself speaking) I use to write quotation. So I really think this does not apply to me.
:::(And that's in fact why you were able to check on copyvio, because the sources were real, verifiable and reliable indeed, as these are: wikileaks PLUSD (search "Robert Conquest"), official biography of Henry Jackson , official biography of Margaret Thatcher (, it can be easily found on ] if you want to check it), and, Conquest's "Reflections on a Ravaged Century", chapter 7 and 9).
:::] is something that you can apply more correctly to people who are reducing articles to a stub, instead to people like me who worked to improve the same articles adding new facts and sources. Also I see you have a long record here in this very ANI thread, as you are involved in many present and old incidents like these ones , because of that it is very hard to consider you a "neutral" contributor to wikipedia. It seems to me you spend more time in the Administrator noticeboards fighting with other contributors than editing the articles, is this not ]?
:::As stated there: "'''''If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution.''''' ''A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing."'' It looks to me that you never seek dispute resolution in a peaceful way, but instead you just look (as others do) for solutions aimed at punishing whoever does not share your personal POV.
:::In any case, I really believe that '''dispute resolution with the aim of giving the project high priority has to be found focusing on contents''' and not on simply citing of[REDACTED] policies/pages in order to prove that the others are wrong, or going under the users' talk pages filling them with "warnings", so that, at the end, only your personal POV can be present in the[REDACTED] articles, which is something that you and others seems to do constantly.
:::I asked the other users more than one time to discuss about contents in the talk pages, they have been actually only able to delete my edits and to accuse me of copyvio. I am still waiting for an answer on contents so I am now asking myself if they actually had something to add to the articles in order to improve them or if they are only able to destroy the others' edits. -- ] (]) 20:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
* I've just glanced at Flushout's 6500 character change to ''].'' It's not terrible, he's going to the right source for criticism of Conquest's (inflated) death count, ''Slavic Review,'' which is the main American journal for Soviet Studies. Conquest is a controversial figure in the field; he's very, very political with his scholarship, one of the main anti-Communist historians of the 1970s and 1980s. The mainstream of history writing for the Soviet period is well to Conquest's left, but neither would it be accurate or fair to call Conquest a "fringe" historian. There was a huge generational fissure between the Traditionalist/Anti-Communist/Conservative/Political historians of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and the new, post-Vietnam era Social Historians, who tend to be liberal or socialist in their personal politics. The latter group in the 1980s were known as "Revisionists" in contrast to the "Traditionalists" — not to be confused with German holocaust denialists, who use the same word as a self-describer. Bear in mind that I've just glanced at Flushout's stuff and especially have no opinion on the copyvio complaint — but at a glance he appeared to be serious and reasonable. ] (]) 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
* Again, with respect to his changes to the Conquest bio, I am far more concerned with the one-shot rollback of 43000 characters of Flushout's generally pretty decent work than I am with the contribution itself — offering no opinion on any potential copyvio. It appears to me that Flushout is being sandbagged by conservative "owners" of the article, who blew up a lot of generally pretty good work with a hand grenade. As usual, it is the wrong version being "protected" by a meddling page freeze. It would be extremely unjust to block Flushout or to topic ban him, he's clearly a serious and grounded historian coming into conflict with people who do not share his interpretations. ] (]) 05:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
* The history of Flushout on the ] piece is more troubling, resembling an effort to whitewash a section for political reasons (PLP?). Getting to the bottom of this would take more time than I have this evening. ] (]) 05:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:: I looked at the version which Flushout wrote myself. It is primarily based on this investigation which is a very detailed look at the book and its claims. It is mentioned in Flushout's writing that the Village Voice's article is controversial. Conquest's own response to the piece is given as well: "error and absurdity". Further down in Flushout's writing, there is a review in the journal ''Slavic Review'', which is a very respectable journal of Soviet studies. There is definitely an argument that the criticism relies too much on the Village Voice source. However, the article as it stands now is nothing more than a stub, and all the content added, good and bad has been eviscerated. This is not the way to write an article. The editor is definitely one with a strong POV, but their contributions were not all bad. This needs to be handled with nuance and appropriate phrasing, not sledgehammer tactics. Unfortunately, I am not especially knowledgeable about the topic to do it myself. ]&nbsp;]] 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::: On the ] article, I again see their edit as perfectly legitimate. The edit is straightforward ] claiming that the ''Village Voice'' article denies the Holodomor. No source is given for this claim, as Flushout correctly state in their edit summaries. The Village Voice article explicitly states that there was a famine, for which Stalin was partially responsible, but states that this did not rise to the level of a genocide. This kind of stuff cannot simply be summarized as "denial of the Holodomor" without any source, as some people on the talk page have discussed. ]&nbsp;]] 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: Having dug more into this, the entire "Modern Denial" ], one section of which Flushout edited, is one huge ]. Absolutely trash sources, or no sources, are used for wild claims, including a at the mailing list of Left Business Observer (I know the publication and have followed it for a long time, but its mailing list is a free for all, by design). ]&nbsp;]] 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::::: Indeed as I read better the sources used for the Jeff Coplon part in ], I can say not only we are in front to a huge ] with the conclusion that Jeff Coplon is a "Holodomor denier" never being present in the primary sources reported . In fact, Coplon never denied the famine but instead only denied that it was a "genocide" and that it was "planned/premeditated", as most sovietologist historian do (for example R.W. Davies and S. Wheatcroft , and even the later Conquest himself! , pag.3 note 6), but also, it is not clear at all what is that makes different a "holodomor denier" journalist denying human premeditation in the famine, from a respected historian denying the very same premeditation!
:::::In "Rewriting History", Jeff Coplon cites historian J. Arch Getty so that it's apparent his conclusions are the same of Getty. Coplon writes ''"Stalin and the Politburo played major roles"'' and then cites Getty: ''" has to be shared by the tens of thousands of activists and officials who carried out the policy and by the peasants who chose to slaughter animals, burn fields, and boycott cultivation in protest."'' (see also: ) Is this denying the 1932-33 Ukraine famine?
:::::Actually it seems to me that confusion arise because in the article it is not stated very well if to be "holodomor denier" means one person denying just the existence of the famine itself (like ] did), or if it means one who denies that it was "planned/premeditated" or that it was "genocide", without denying its existence.
:::::This would be in any case deeply troubling, as not only the conclusion "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denier" can put in the position of being "Holodomor Deniers" many sovietologist historians, but this particular conclusion on just Coplon himself would be anyway a so partisan/biased conclusion that even if a secondary source is found it would have to be correctly cited stating "According to ...".


*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
:::::P.s. Thanks Carrite and Kingsindian for having read my old edits, if you found any problem in them and you want to tell me about it on my talk page I would be more than happy on having some advise from you for my future edits. -- ] (]) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::Well, according to ], ,
{{Quotation|Revisionist Sovietologist J. Arch Getty accused Conquest of parroting the propaganda of "exiled nationalists." And in January 1988, the Village Voice ran a lengthy essay by Jeff Coplon (now a contributing editor at New York magazine) titled "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right." Coplon sneered at "the prevailing vogue of anti-Stalinism" and dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Such talk, he asserted, was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis.}}
:::::::Hence Coplon ''dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime''. Consider a journalist who ''dismissed as absurd the idea that the Holocaust had been created by the Nazi regime''. Would he qualify as a Holocaust denialist? Now, if you think that Cathy Yang was wrong, please bring other sources, but not your personal opinion, and not the writings by Coplon himself. But this is a content dispute, is not it? Why bring this to ANI? ] (]) 04:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: This is not the place to discuss content. The diff I gave above had no sources at all. Furthermore, an opinion by a journalist that another journalist is engaging in Holodomor denial is not sufficient to assert in Misplaced Pages's voice that it is indeed so, without any source at all. Not to mention that even the source you give does not state that Coplon engaged in Holodomor denial. ]&nbsp;]] 15:51, 1 November 2015 (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.
:::::::: Cathy Young is a journalist. Dr. Arch Getty is a full professor of Russian History at ]. Who is the subject expert here? ] (]) 18:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::@Kingsindan. Yes, sure, this is a behavior problem. I responded to Flushout because he/she continued placing walls of irrelevant text in this thread with promises "to repay them with the same money", right after receiving a block for forum shopping. @Carrite. The quotation was about specific publication by Coplon, not about Getty. Speaking about Getty, he much better known than Coplon and his historical approach is frequently described in books by ] ) as "''similar in many ways to the line taken by the revisionist school in Germany, with its opposition to moral condemnation of Nazism, its call to "historicize" Nazism, and its objection to such crude terms as "heroes" and "villains"''". ] (]) 22:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::}} I agree that the big wall of text which {{u|Flushout1999}} placed were not helpful, but sometimes big content disputes require some elaboration. But I see their edits on the ] article as perfectly good. I advise Flushout to read the essay ]. I also advise Flushout that their attitude "Users assume bad faith towards me, I will pay them back with their own money" is disastrous, especially in a contentious topic area. Even if you suspect users assume bad faith towards you, you should stay calm and not retaliate. I advise Flushout to read the excellent essay ]. ]&nbsp;]] 03:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
:Agreed, I'll always assume good faith but I have to say this was not done at all towards me since the beginning. I now read ] so that I have now clear how I will be able to fix my past edits, I will just go back to the talk pages so we can all discuss on contents first. For the ], the issue is very complex so I'll probably have some trouble to synthesize my opinions but I'll try. I'll now check this issue on ], I'll basically copy-paste what I wrote above trying to be more coincise. -- ] (]) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::Experienced editors should know better than to make edits like . I haven't reviewed the other edits by Flushout1999 but he was certainly right to remove that section. ] (]) 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Oh no, Flushout was wrong by engaging in edit war on this page with several contributors and by trying to disprove reliable sources on the basis of ], like . ] (]) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: Discussions on the talk page allow interpretations and arguments - that is not ] by itself. This is to be sharply distinguished from making changes in article space based on no sources at all, which is present in the diff I and {{u|Ssscienccce}} presented. I agree with the edit-warring claim though. Flushout seems to have simmered down and is following proper procedure now. ]&nbsp;]] 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::All editing by Flushout1999 during last year was directed towards promoting certain POV in several related articles. He/she should either stop doing this by making edits which do not cause objections from multiple contributors or edit something else. ] (]) 12:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::At least his removal of the Coplon attack section was in line with BLP and OR. The revert by Iryna Harpy certainly wasn't. A single source was used for a whole section that claimed Coplon was a Holodomor denier. And that single source was the article Coplon wrote, pretty much the definition of OR. I mentioned that section in the RfC a few weeks ago, didn't bother removing it because I know who would win that battle, either by endless discussions or with help from friends... Flushout1999 did remove it, we'll see how long it takes before that account is blocked indeff... ] (]) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I think this is mostly fixed right now, thanks to effort by Iryna Harpy and others. You are telling that Flushout1999 can contribute positively to the project as follows from his editing history in ] (3 reverts and discussion). However, the actual problem is . Flushout1999 re-wrote the page about Robert Conquest by copy-pasting large segments of text from an article by ] (), same person he removed from the page about Holodomor denial. So, after looking at his editing in general, I tend to agree with comments by user MastCell . ] (]) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: Indeed we had a discussion on that admin noticeboard which was concluded with my answer (here: ).
:::::::: You are also saying that in the page about ] I copy-pasted large segments of text by Jeff Coplon, but in reality I used his article only in this old version of ] (because of the large citations from academic and professional historians it contains) and, after your request , I deleted it totally (with this result: ). However, the page was again totally deleted by you and Volunteer Marek, and that's why I opened this incident.
:::::::: Meanwhile you claimed in the noticeboard that this Coplon source was unreliable and that it was ] in the ] article (here ). So I also deleted accordly the Jeff Coplon's section on that page for being OR and unreliable as you said. Iryna Harpy protested it and reverted it, telling me the article was well sourced (here:), so at the end I left it as it was.
:::::::: After that, you made an effort to find some ] in order for the Jeff Coplon section and article to be present in the ] page, however it seems to me and to other editors that the sources used are still not good in order to claim "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denial" (here ), also it is evident that Coplon never denied the existence of the Holodomor, he only has a vision of it near to the one most western historians have. In any case, only you know why you changed idea about the WP:OR on that section.
:::::::: Also now (11-5) you are saying that you agree with MasterCell that I have the goal "''to assemble a case against Conquest, rather than to write anything remotely resembling an encyclopedic biography''" while one day before you wrote on my personal talk page "'' I think that many changes in your version are acceptable.''" (here: .
:::::::: I'm sorry but I really don't understand your behavior, I was already blocked for 48 hrs for this issue because I made evident Copyvio (I was not aware of those policies, but now I acknowledeged them), in addition you and others deleted most of my edits, and I also said I will discuss on the talk pages before any edit. Why are you keeping this issue up? -- ] (]) 17:43, 7 November 2015 (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)
== Seeking indef ban of Second Dark ==


: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)
Hello, I'm seeking to have the user ] (] | ]) indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. Their account was created in May this year, and is solely aimed at disrupting ] page. This user has so far been warned for violating ], ] ( and ) and has previously received a 24 hour ban for ] - such is the composition of their talk page. More recently the account has adopted the tactic of ] against the ]. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and to my mind this is an open and shut case that ] - but wasn't due to a distracting in which they were found not to be a sock, and (this time we're facing the distractions of a miscreant IP aimed at achieving the same outcome). Literally every edit to ] page this user has made has been reverted by other editors ( ), all of whom have made their best efforts to explain the situation to this disruptive user. Their combative behaviour and policy violations have now been going on for 6 months well past the point any reasonable person would have developed a respect and understanding for Misplaced Pages's policies (which they continue to flout and ]). Please make sure this matter gets resolved this time, as it risks falling into the category of ] long-term abuse. This user comes back every few months to harass the page, I think they need an extended holiday from this activity. --] (]) 03:23, 30 October 2015 (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)
:You neglected to inform them of this discussion so I've placed a notice on their user talk page. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 10:22, 30 October 2015 (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)
::Thanks for that Liz, I must have gotten distracted. --] (]) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (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)
:Recommend '''BOOMERANG'''. From his contributions history, Jobrot is a battlegrounding edit-warring SPA who is here to make Misplaced Pages describe cultural marxism as a right-wing conspiracy theory (it is neither) in violation of the neutrality pillar as well as the civility pillar since Jobrot is calling the other editors in the content dispute conspiracy theorists. Second Dark is also an SPA but he is not breaking policies.
* 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)
:Anyone interested in the subject in dispute can refer to p.189-190 of Great Ideas, Grand Schemes by Paul Schumaker et al which describes 20th-century communist philosophies as calling for "a total and revolutionary transformation of society", "transforming human consciousness", and "cultural revolution" to "break down political and social institutions and customs on a continual basis." Examples are given of the Soviet Union and Maoist China. The content dispute is over whether everyone who is aware that this history happened should be described in Misplaced Pages's voice as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and associated with the mass murderer Anders Breivik. ] (]) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (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)
::The page and section isn't dealing with {{tq|"communist philosophies"}} in general - and the key proponents of this conspiracy theory are specifically claiming its aim as ''"destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"'' - the conspiracy theory is associated with Breivik as he championed it in his manifesto as reported in various ] sources. In fact, all the sources in the current section meet ].
{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:*'''Support''' Ban.
::{{tq|"Second Dark.. ...is not breaking policies."}} ignoring ], repetitively performing ] without consulting or even listing any complaints on the talk page, disruptive edits to the talk page, ] and not being ] for the right reasons (in this case, comming here only to break policies) are all policy violations. Besides which ] is a repeat offender and has already been warned several times in several ways by several different admins as well as users. Their time here is over, and they have proved their disinterest in community, policy and ]. --] (]) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:] (]) 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)
:::What consensus?
::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)
:::: {{xt|Reading this article for the first time, and knowing nothing of the subject matter, I also thought it quite inappropriate that 'conspiracy theory' is used as if a fact rather than reported as a claim made by opponents.... Misplaced Pages should not be using an abusive term as a statement of fact. As an analogy, you may well find sources saying George Bush is an idiot, but describing him as such as a matter of fact (e.g. 'During his presidency it became clear that Bush was an idiot', or the heading 'President and idiot') rather than reporting someone else's description of him as an idiot is to say the least unencyclopedic. Ben Finn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (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)
:::: In your defenses of the deletion, you're attributing undue weight to left-wing sources which deliberately seek to discredit the beliefs of the right using rhetoric similar to that which you are employing in our discussion. We would not (for example) use primarily right-wing sources to dictate the tone and content of the article on feminism unless we were Conservapedia ... Ptprs (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (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)
:::: This article is quite simply WP:NPOV and WP:OR of the worst kind imaginable. Please keep in mind what trade literature has to say on the subject and don't develop your own theories or try and portray a very common term in cultural studies as a "conspiracy theory", this is unsuitable for an Encyclopedia. 62.157.60.248 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: It's crazy how people are so desperate to pretend that saying the Frankfurt School was influential in forming the current American Left ideology is somehow a "conspiracy theory." I took courses in philosophy at UMKC which discussed the Frankfurt School at length, although my professor was trying to put them in a positive light (in my opinion) and calling it "cultural Marxism" was no big deal, cause it was Marxism and it was about culture instead of economics... --BenMcLean (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015 - Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Remove condemnation of racism and include references to association with racist ideologies. Overall, make the tone significantly more neutral... Ideloctober (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: Please make the section heading CM not CT - I don't care about whatever you guys are all into, but a heading should be as descriptive as possible. It is currently failing.... Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: ... This is disappointing, embarrassing, and far from any neutral point of view being claimed... — 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

:::: Why not do as German wiki and create Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page with links to Cultural Studies and a page about Cultural Marxism as a right wing catch-phrase/slogan? ... --Batmacumba (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:::: As we can see in this article the term "kulturmarxist" was already in use by the 1960s to describe Frankfurt schule proponents among the German academic right. It's absolutely not true that the term didn't appear until 1992. VivaElGeneralissmo (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::: How has Jobrot been allowed to completely defy the overwhelming consensus on this talk page that Cultural Marxism should have its own page? 86.170.51.163 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)}}

:::Jobrot wants Second Dark banned for adding a POV tag here. That is the "disrupting", "not here", "disinterest in community, policy and consensus" etc that Jobrot refers to. Adding a POV tag to a POV dispute. Again, recommend BOOMERANG. ] (]) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::<small><small> (Above post formatted by Softlavender for ease of comprehension in this overlong thread.) ] (]) 08:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)</small></small>
::::What you've done there is very dishonest indeed. You've taken parts of the talk page which came BEFORE consensus was formed, and pasted them AS IF they represent the current views of the active editors on the page. I have pasted a link to the consensus, but obviously I now have to do what you've just done, and quote from the page it's self:

::::''Main page: Frankfurt School Talk page

:::::{{tq|''I'd be interested in hearing from other editors on this matter so we can gauge the consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''Any of the more descriptive ones would be fine with me. I guess I like "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" the best but only by a little bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''In accordance with WP:RFP I've put in a request to the appropriate admin for lowering the protection on the redirect page so that we can change the heading (without breaking the redirect). If nothing comes of it I'll put a more general request in at WP:RFP. Thanks for your interest in this topic. In the meanwhile, hopefully some other editors will comment as to clarify consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''I've dropped the protection to semi; can I suggest changes are only made when there's a clear consensus to do so, though? At the moment, there appear to be at least three options on the table. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''I would support "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)". It's clear from what Jobrot has said before that this page does not address the common usage of 'Cultural Marxism' among conservatives, but only about the fringe conspiracy theories related to that usage, as attested by RS's. This would be more descriptive and avoid the earlier conflation between the two. PublicolaMinor (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''There is no need for the parenthetical. Just write "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''Yes, agree. Or just leave it as is. Dave Dial (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

:::::{{tq|''Okay, I've gone ahead and made those changes! Congratulations on helping to come to the first consensus based decision this talk page has seen in a long time! --Jobrot (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)''}}

::::This is all from the bottom quarter of the talk page, making it some of the most recent discussion on the page. The stuff you've pasted is from the top half, and those discussions CONTINUED until the other participants either saw reason, or saw enough reason to cease their line of argumentation. THAT is the purpose of talk pages - to DISCUSS editorial changes to the page - NONE of the threads you quotes accomplished consensus. Hardly ANY of them were even suggesting editorial changes, and many of them were going against ] - I suggest this IP user, along with ] BOTH do as I have repeatedly advised - learn the purposes behind policy. I'll note here again that today ] is once again demanding the NPOV tag be put on the section, without being able to suggest ANY changes to the article that would help. It's just a personal ] desire of theirs to call the section NPOV when it's not - and they need to accept that what they're doing goes against the ] guidelines:
:::::{{Main|NPOV}}
:::::''"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"''
::::::''"Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."''
::::Learn the rules if you're going to come here and flood this page. --] (]) 04:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

* Since this appears to be about the whole "cultural Marxism" thing, this ] might be of some use. In short, some people disagree with it being called a conspiracy theory and think a simple POV tag is going to it. ]<sub>(])</sub> 08:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::And those people have provided NO EVIDENCE, and NO UNDERSTANDING of the topic. As I've just made clear at the bottom of the ]. There is no case to be made that ] was ever part of any organized movement to overthrow Western Civilization, and it's a poor reflection on Misplaced Pages that I'm having to go to this much repeated effort to re-iterate this simple yet obvious fact about The Frankfurt School. No academic nor any reliable sources have EVER made this claim of them because it's a RIDICULOUS claim to make about them and goes against their ] and beliefs. --] (]) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
* This is not a matter of ] it's a matter of ] and now of ] and it needs clearing up with great prejudice in favor of the academic and editorial consensus. It's clear whose side Misplaced Pages should take, and what should be done as this specific user has been lingering and displaying poor conduct for some time now. Do not let it fall into the category of ], this user has already been overlooked once for a banning (and now we're back here), don't let it happen again. There are no redeeming features. --] (]) 10:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
* The user is now edit warring. --] (]) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::It's JobRot who has been edit warring by removing the POV tag when there is a clear POV dispute. He has camped out there for months and has refused to work with literally dozens of people. I'm willing for there to be a no POV tag once the dispute is resolved, but it has to date not even been entertained. He also consistently accuses me of vandalism when I haven't made a single edit except the tag. I've tried to work with him but he refuses and is in violation of the consensus on the talk that the article is not neutral.] (]) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Do you even know what the term "consensus" means? I've , and there has already been ]. What do you have to show your "consensus"? Nothing. So your accusation is as foolish as it is empty. Likewise demanding there be a POV tag due to the title (as is your claim) when there is a strong pre-existing consensus on the title (as I've linked to) IS '''VANDALISM and a VIOLATION OF CONSENSUS'''. This is an example of the consistent ] and ] actions I've had to endure from this user and their edits - they are only here to ] and ] and they refuse to ]. This arduous and repetitive cycle must stop. This user fails to accept policy or even recognize consensus (as you can see in their own statements). They need to be banned to stop this madness. --] (]) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
*At the very least they should be permanently banned from ] page and the associated talk page. This is not the first time they've been disruptive there, but it ought to be the last. --] (]) 19:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
:::You've also refused to discuss adding sources, academic sources, that counter your point of view. Any Admin can just look at the talk page. Also, about half the talk page is JobRot trying to scare people away from the page. He's been doing this for months. He's also lying when he says there was any sort of consensus: he's basically an army of one. I'm willing to work with him, but this is very clearly a POV dispute if there ever was one.] (]) 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Please - feel free to go to the talk page and cite an academic source and quote the text you think should be included. That would be a LEGITIMATE use of the talk page! Which we could have a legitimate editorial discussion around! PLEASE DO THIS! I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU TO DO THIS SINCE MAY. Instead you've been failing to ] me, and using the talk page as a ] to discuss your personal views on the matter - which I frankly don't care about at all (as I've now made clear to you on multiple occasions). --] (]) 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::::All you've done on multiple occasions is prevent a neutral point of view from being added. I'm not the only user there who you've had a problem with. The page simply needs admin attention at this point.] (]) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::::...and back to square one we go! --] (]) 04:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've suggested several sources over the months as evidenced by the talk page...then he starts screaming that they're my personal opinions. Please stop lying. Do you really think your accusations aren't verifiable? JobRot has wikiowned the section and talk page. I really need admin attention at this point. I'll check back shortly.] (]) 22:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::] --] (]) 05:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I suggest you just try to ignore this editor, and the anon ips who continuously push this conspiracy theory. That is the reason I reverted the ] on the article Talk page that you reinstated. It's not going to do any good to reason with these editors who ]. Pointing to the AfD or other discussions that we've had over and over is enough now to show ]. Responding to every comment-attack is really just useless. I also agree the editor(Second Dark) should be blocked for ] and ] ] (]) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::: '''Request block of Dave Dial for personal attack.''' ] (]) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Your initial revert to the talk page was probably the correct direction to go in. The user in question hasn't been on the talk page since PublicolaMinor and Aquillion showed up. So I suspect my presence there is their problem with Misplaced Pages. I'll try to stick to ] but as you suggest, users who repeatedly flaunt their inability to ] to policy should probably be removed from causing everyone else problems... and policy/consensus has been quite clear on this topic ], ], ]. --] (]) 06:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::The only problem is that SecondDark tends to take large breaks then come back for repeat performances - as they did in May and September. Which is why I'm pushing the issue here. This isn't their first stint at this, and they've been directed to policy often enough that normal comprehension should have occurred months ago (see their ]). So their behaviour appears to be intentional/motivated. --] (]) 09:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': It's too early for anyone to be ] from Misplaced Pages. A topic ban, a temporary block, or an indefinite block with ] might be in order. But let's not jump to site bans yet. NOTES: (1) The IP participating in this discussion appears to probably be {{noping|Second Dark}} logged out (i.e. socking), which adds to the measure of his problematic behavior. And add to that his knee-jerk "'''{{xt|Request block of Dave Dial for personal attack}}'''", above. All things considered, I personally '''Support''' blocking {{noping|Second Dark}} for ] and ]. ] (]) 08:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Sorry to disappoint you, but none of the ip's were me. I submit to an investigation if you don't believe me.] (]) 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:::] Second Dark has proven that they only care about Misplaced Pages's policies to the extent they can be aided in avoiding their repercussions. Whether this has been immediately after being warned for , or their recent brinkmanship of 3RR after having already received a 24 hour block for violating 3RR (and in all honesty I would have had them suffer another 3RR block had this AN/I not already been in progress). They've even had the gall to complain when informed of policies - that they could have in their own words; "easily looked up themselves" - yet failed to do so. I'd say that a topic ban is the minimum that can be expected from this user's ongoing behaviour and would also serve to clear up what they are ] for. Their continued violations against ] and ] editing, on top of their long lineage of other violations, uncooperative behaviours with multiple editors and unwillingness to comprehend policy when directed should have earned them at least that by now. I'd hope that would also act as a warning --] (]) 00:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: Second Dark, it's pretty obvious after the IP went for a block of Dave Dial for making an observation about you that the IP is you or someone you called in. If I were you I'd desist in all of your disruptive activities immediately, including editing the ] article and talk page, before you get indef blocked. ] (]) 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: Dave Dial called me a conspiracy theorist. That was a personal attack just like that 900FootJesus comment. If requesting a block is out of line, look at the title of this section. And nobody called me in. Did Jobrot call you in? ] (]) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::You've never made a single edit to Misplaced Pages except for this ANI thread, so you were either called in or you are Second Dark socking. ] (]) 09:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Because you're psychic? Or you cannot imagine any other reason that two different people could agree that and you are ] the quotes of others agreeing ] (]) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The author of that article ] is tied into the ] controversy (he even coined the term "Gamergate moderate"), and in the ] on the previous Cultural Marxism page it was noted by many that GamerGate is a group that housed strong although ill-informed support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Hence the resurgence of the conspiracy theory coming from GamerGate related forums (where "SJWs" and "Cultural Marxists" are the same mythical beasts) as well as appearing on 4chan and 8chan. However, what these ill researched individuals fail to note (and it is a stark fact of the matter) is that on the previous Misplaced Pages page about 'Cultural Marxism' only '''3 out of 9''' of the sources in the reference list (which the page is constructed around) even mentioned the term "Cultural Marxism" (and two of those references come from a single individual, with the third coming from the right wing commentator William S. Lind). Contrast this to the current section where '''14 out of the 14''' sources for the section use the term 'Cultural Marxism' within them. This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous ] and the fact that the IP is attempting to extend the controversy around ] to this discussion somewhat reveals their position (which as noted, does not have the sources on its side). --] (]) 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: None of that justifies Jobrot's persistent refusal to approach the subject in a neutral manner and throwing a salad of aspersions against anyone who suggests the slightest change in wording in a transparent attempt to ]. Several people have presented several sources showing that there is more to cultural marxism than the right-wing conspiracy theories and ] Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion that credits Lind with popularizing the term. This is a clear case of page ownership by someone who is on a mission to modify Misplaced Pages's content for political reasons and not to build an encyclopedia. If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. ] (]) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|"Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs"}} - I've never made such a refusal. Also, Gramsci wasn't part of The Frankfurt School.
::::::::::{{tq|and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion}} - (of course his work is completely ] claiming things like ''"when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality... ...They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual"'' and ''"Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS"'' - so naturally I made sure to include a secondary source that puts Lind's views in context).
::::::::::{{tq|If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot.}} I've never edited the GamerGate page (nor the talk page), nor do I intend to.
::::::::::Your claims are demonstrably false, and are thus most likely damaging the case you're attempting to make. --] (]) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: I retract the claim about Gramsci since I was unable to find anyone quoting him in a quick browse of the archives. Marcuse and Lind are two of the citations from the original article that Jobrot just said were inappropriate for inclusion. As for the claim that Gramsci had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School and is not relevant to a discussion of cultural marxism, that is not what Jobrot was saying at .
::::::::::: {{tq|'' ... this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci... --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)''}}
::::::::::: {{tq|'' The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)''}}
::::::::::: The academic school of cultral marxism is defined by Jerry Watts in ''The Socialist as Ostrich: The Unwillingness of the Left to Confront Modernity'' from Social Research vol. 50 No. 1 (1983)
::::::::::: {{tq|'' Cultural Marxists are all of those who consider themselves the theoretical descendants of Gramsci, the early Korsch, Sartre, Lukács, Lucien Goldmann, and the "Frankfurt School."''}}
::::::::::: When Jobrot rejects sources that discuss these subjects and their application of marxist critical techniques to culture just because they don't use the then-obscure term "cultural marxism", Jobrot is throwing out good sources.
::::::::::: Regarding the modern use of "cultural marxism" to describe the general tendency of marxists to attempt to change culture, a different subject worthy of a different page and what Jobrot wants Misplaced Pages to call a conspiracy theory, George Waskovich in ''The Ideological Shadow of the U.S.S.R.'' (1950) describes this tendency as obvious, well known, and hardly needing mention.
::::::::::: {{tq|'' To one familar with Marxian ideology and the political purposes which rest on it, it is no surprise to know that the ultimate purpose of the present Soviet leaders is inexorably to transform the neighboring states into economic, social, political, and even moral counterparts of their own state, nor that certain means and measures must be used to achieve this objective. Indeed, the technique of revolutionary change has become all too clear... ''}}
::::::::::: Waskovich follows this with descriptions of marxist attacks on the cultural traditions of eastern Europe that the USSR used to strengthen its hold on these countries. Or as Jobrot calls it, a wacko conspiracy theory.] (]) 21:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Here's a much more recent, much more relevant quote from me: {{tq|"This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous ]"}}
::::::::::::I've always argued that the radical-left used the term prior and in a different way to the radical-right (that it originated in the radical left of the 1970s and was intended as a criticism of The Frankfurt School - I now own my own copy of the 1973 Trent Schroyer book it was first sighted in - which is critiquing The Frankfurt School for having departed with their Marxist origins), this usage came from the radical-left and was ''extremely'' rare and informal (being at least twice removed from the theorists in question as "Cultural Marxism" is a term based on "The Frankfurt School" which its self is an '''informal term/grouping''' (as is mentioned on ] page '''multiple times''' ]) - this makes the original meaning of ] all the more rare, informal and ] (just because a private author publishes an uncorroborated opinion doesn't make it notable for the creation of a whole Misplaced Pages article).
::::::::::::More vehemently I'd like to point out that people can change and flesh out their views within 6 months (the time it's been since your quotes of me), especially if they've spent far more time researching the term since then. As I have. So to dredge up and paste out of context comments from 6 months ago as if opinions are all static, unchanging and unaffected by time, reason, and research is frankly an incredibly pathetic attempt at agenda pushing. ] ] ]. I'm right here giving you my opinion - you don't need to desperately dredge through my logs when I can give you my most current opinions immediately and with great strength. --] (]) 05:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Diannaa|David biddulph|JzG}}admin able see if ip sock not accusation true false so ping admin] (]) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please all calm down and settle this like adults, it seems like all this discussion had gotten is people angry. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support''' indefinite block with ] as per Softlavender's vote. I've had enough discussion with Second Dark (6 months off and on) to know that further discussion would be ], others are free to try to corral this user into understanding and accepting Misplaced Pages's policies but at this point and with their repeated bad behaviour and policy violations, I have to give up. --] (]) 17:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
: @Weegeerunner: there's your answer. ] (]) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::If this were any other forum, this IP user's behaviour would be known as '''Thread jacking'''. I suggest we all focus on the purpose of this thread and on my original complaint. --] (]) 05:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

== Disruptive edits by User:Walter Görlitz ==
] has repeatedly reverted my edits to ] related articles. A consensus was established ] that "FC" and "SC" were used too often in team names within Mrelated articles, and I'm trying to edit these articles to reflect this consensus, but I keep getting reverted. See these reverts, for example:


This seems to be a case of ], based on ] and the comments that accompany his reverts. He insists that the consensus supports ''his'' position when it clearly does not. It's become distruptive: I'd like to move on this issue and work on improving these articles, but his reverts aren't allowing that. ] (]) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

: Actually, I'm tired of Bmf 051's combative editing behaviour. The consensus was clear and he's removed almost every mention of "FC" in article. That's not "less often" it's unconstructive edits. Not only did I hear it, I'm tired of him yelling about it. I'm happy for him to to have a topic ban. And it's not ''my'' position, it was a position that was agree upon when the Whitecaps entered the league. ] (]) 04:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::]. IF there was an agreement made when Vancouver entered the league (I don't think you've ever shown that such a discussion took place), this new consensus changes that. ] (]) 04:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
: As an example of his "less often" edit I offer {{diff|016–17 CONCACAF Champions League|688124112|688024568|this edit}} where he states "YOU need to read the discussion. It says FC and SC should NOT be used as much. Quit defying consensus." Yet, "less often" here means not at all. ] (]) 04:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::My edits have left several instances of "FC" and "SC". I have not removed all them. See for example. The discussion talks about bringing it inline with other soccer/football articles as far as the usage of "FC" and "SC". I've removed some instances, but have left others. Your edits have not removed any, which isn't at all what the consensus states. ] (]) 04:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::: At least two piped-out all instances. Some edits removed several, but in what I would argue is an unacceptable way. ] (]) 04:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::::So what's a working-criteria for keeping or removing these? --] (]) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: is unacceptable. Modifying the discussion for a closed RfC. ] (]) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

::::: {{ec}} Is this the place where we want to discuss a working criteria or should it be discussed where the vague criteria was offered? I returned to the project to request comment from them. I did not follow and revert Bmf 051's edits on articles not on my watchlist, only those that were. In most instances, the edits adding the FC were made by other editors so I would argue: leave them alone until a clear criteria can be offered. However, I have little hope of that happening. The FOOTY project is entrenched in a European milieu, not one with close ties with MLS.
::::: Since I edited outside the closed RfC (after {{tl|Rfc bottom}}), it is acceptable. ] (]) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Jobrot}} My criteria when I made these edits: keep it for the first instance of a team's name in an article, plus any uses in templates (] for example) as those may appear in multiple articles, and therefore could potentially be the first instance of a team's name in a particular article. The spirit of the consensus is to bring it in line with other soccer articles. This criteria actually comes short of doing that (i.e. it leaves more instances of FC and SC than you would see in ] for instance), so I'm not sure what that complaint is. ] (]) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: {{ec}} And that's the point, MLS has different ]s than European clubs do. The discussion at the RfC is imposing a European understanding on the North American teams. I have had to deal with that for years when nominating third- and fourth-division Canadian teams for deletion. The response from the FOOTY project members is "'''Keep'' - they're a third-division team, so they're notable." They have no understanding of the sport on this side of the water. ] (]) 05:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Looking solely at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news and how they elect to self-describe. As of now, the first fifteen articles use the following terms to describe themselves. "Whitecaps FC": 5, "'Caps": 4, no team name: 3, "Vancouver" 2. In the fourteen articles that loaded (one timed out or reset over two attempts), this the breakdown. "'Caps" or "the Caps": 30, "Whitecaps FC": 27, Vancouver’s" or just "Vancouver" (only in reference to the team, not the city): 21, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC": 11, "Whitecaps" or "the Whitecaps": 3, "Blue and White": 3. There's no question that they use multiple terms, but never ever just "Vancouver Whitecaps" which is why it should not be used on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: But MLS is a ] league. Meaning, technically, MLS owns the team. Why are you selectively looking at that one MLS-related website? If you search mlssoccer.com, the league's site, you see "Vancouver Whitecaps" plenty of times. . Also, what if you were look at what the media calls them, for example? Besides, the consensus is already decided: FC should be used less. You're ]. ] (]) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: Agreed, but technically, MLS doesn't exist, it's the teams that own each other. ] (]) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::}}
The league uses the full name in standings http://www.mlssoccer.com/standings. I see no reason why we should not. They use it in schedules http://www.mlssoccer.com/schedule. So we're left with deciding on whether it's in maps and prose. Maps are likely a first mention so I would argue full name as well. ] (]) 14:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
:I don't think the solution you're suggesting reflects the consensus, because it would keep the full name in the vast majority of cases. One of the gripes that you have (I gather) is with the wording of the question itself, specifically the meaning of "less often". We could sit here all day and debate whether "less often" means one less, two less, or 100% less – or we could actually read the discussion. The spirit of the discussion that formed the consensus, was that "FC" and "SC" are used far too often. The working-criteria should not start with eliminating as few FC/SCs as possible, but with using as few FC/SCs as necessary, because that reflects the consensus. ] (]) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
:: I am not discussing the consensus here. As I have explained, the consensus was reached by people with an understanding of the sport in a different context and if you can’t see that they misunderstand the actual situation, then it explains why you’ve been edit warring to remove almost every mention of FC for those teams, which is ''also'' against the consensus. If you don’t respect the way the league and team represent the name, then we have nothing to discuss other than a topic ban for you. ] (]) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
::: I really doubt that anyone has done anything here that would result in a ban.
::: It seems to me that the consensus you want is one that applies only to Major League Soccer articles. If such a ] consensus existed, why would it override a wider ] consensus, regardless of the "context" of their "understanding of the sport"? Besides, it's not as if MLS editors weren't given the opportunity to respond to the RfC: notices were posted on the talk pages of relevant articles weeks before the discussion was closed. In fact, over half of the the editors that responded to that RfC are people that regularly edit MLS articles (including you and me). And why are you ignoring all the other references to these team's names on the ? ] (]) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: No. I would expect it to apply to all North American leagues. The problem is that the North American editors don't engage with the FOOTY project because of past experiences exactly like this. ] (]) 15:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: Out of curiosity, what other North American editors don't engage the FOOTY project for this reason (as opposed to some other reason)? ] (]) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::: {{user|Ckatz}} and {{user|KitHutch}} were two of the main editors who insisted on the separation of the three Whitecaps team articles. Three additional editors, who are have not edited in over a year discussed the topic as well. {{user|Oknazevad}}, {{user|CUA 27}}, {{user|Bluhaze777}} and most notably {{user|UncleTupelo1}} edit MLS articles and I cannot recall seeing them in Footy discussions. There are NASL editors who I have never seen there either. I will not speculate on reasons why they don't participate in Footy discussions. Perhaps they can comment on the piping-out of FC from Whitecaps, Sounders and other club names. ] (]) 06:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::My 2¢? Once initially established that the full name includes the FC?SC?Whatever, it can be dropped, just like any case of using a short name for an article subject. It almost seems pointless (yet pointy) to insist on every mention including it. Charts and tables excepted. But frankly, the majority of writing on MLS just calls them "the Sounders", not "Sounders FC"; that just reads oddly. ] (]) 06:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: That was what I suggested above. ] (]) 07:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree with ]'s suggestion. ] (]) 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: I'm okay with this a well. This is not substantially different than my edits that were reverted. I too kept only (or mostly) the initial mention of FC in the prose, as ] has suggested (see {{diff|Vancouver Whitecaps FC|687850525|prev|this revert}}). If the only thing Walter and I disagreed on is the mentions of FC in tables and charts that were removed, I don't think it warranted more than a partial reversion. ] (]) 01:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: But there was no clear definition of what "less" meant and in the four examples I provided above you completely removed "FC". ] (]) 05:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated topic, I'm somewhat concerned about Bmf 051's {{diff|Q source|688176586|688076349|sudden interest}} in a topic I edited earlier today. I trust that this is not the start of wikihounding. ] (]) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:What is my sudden interest in Jesus? Do you hear yourself? ] (]) 12:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Not an interest in Jesus, in theology, and an obscure theological article at that. You have not edited in the area in your recent history and it happened to be at the top of ''my'' history at the time of your recent edit war. ] (]) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::: The larger question is, who are you to question my interest in anything? I checked your contribution page to find some diffs of your reverts, I saw a page that interested me, and I made a constructive edit. Nothing wrong with that. ] (]) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: There is if you're doing it for the wrong reason. I would advise you not to find any other "interesting" articles that you haven't edited before but which are normal editing subjects for Walter Gorlitz. ] (]) 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: I know that, and I don't intend to. Not because I did it for the wrong reason (it's not uncommon for me to make minor improvements on articles that I don't normally edit e.g. {{diff|Tammy Faye Messner|prev|685477062|this}} and {{diff|The Tenderloins|prev|680488071|this}}), but because I don't want to give the impression that I'm doing it for the wrong reason. ] (]) 06:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Precisely. ] (]) 08:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

== User:Bazonka and spelling changes ==
] is mass changing ''licenced'' to ''licensed'' across thousands of articles. Examples . This is generating some stiff opposition at ]. Bazonka has been reverted by multiple editors, but simply edit wars the change back in . I think the user should be stopped until a consensus is established to do this. I cannot block myself as I have become involved in the discussion. This would also seem to be something that requires ] approval. ]] 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:I am simply making changes to spellings as per ]. Some of the editors who reverted me actually thanked me when I reverted back with a fuller explanation, i.e. that "license" is the correct verb form of the BrE noun "licence" and is not (as it initially appears) an AmE spelling. ] (]) 11:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:And ] is irrelevant as no bot is being used. ] (]) 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
::BAG is not the main issue here, but from ] on assisted editing,
:::While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request...In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, may be more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.
::The case is at least arguable. ]] 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, but I felt that ] gave sufficient justification. I'll look at BAG before I do any more. ] (]) 12:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I ] but they essentially told me to bog off. My actions are not relevant to them. ] (]) 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop wasting Bazonka's time with frivolous complaints: it's perfectly fine to fix spelling with AWB. Aside from when debate on spelling exists (e.g. ]), spelling changes to conform with the OED are '''never''' wrong for en:gb articles, and if you don't know how to spell your own language, or you think you know better than Oxford, there's no reason to listen to you on this. ] (]) 13:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:It's rather sad for your argument then, that OED does not actually declare the ''licence'' form wrong. My reading is that it permits it. ]] 01:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::It may be technically correct, but uncommon in official and contemporary writing. ] explicitly mandates the use of the S spelling, so I suggest you raise it at the talk page there, and unless you can convince people to change MOS away from the accepted common usage, then I think Nyttend's decision should stand. ] (]) 10:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::''It's rather sad...''
::Actually, it's rather sad that your argument for reflexive edit-warring is "Well, technically it's not ''prohibited''". Pretty much means that you've lost the argument about whether something is the right thing to do. ] (]) 11:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
* This is far from getting "stiff opposition", but rather support.
: ] is pretty adamant that Bazonka is correct here. ] (]) 11:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You know what? Unless someone can actually point out what I'm doing wrong, that isn't either completely bogus (e.g. citing ]) or in contravention of ] (e.g. advocating a preference for archaic spelling), then I'm going to continue. I reckon I've virtually fixed all of them already though. ] (]) 16:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:Editing Misplaced Pages often makes us challenge our own preconceptions. I thought you were wrong, , you're right, please do carry on. ] (]) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|NebY}}, you've checked and found that there is evidence of a change. You have not found that the spelling I learnt in school before that second edition was written is incorrect (because it isn't); it may be old-fashioned, but so what? I'm not going to relearn spelling because fashions have changed. (anecdote warning) As it happens, I recall (again, before that second edition was published) seeing this very word mis-spelt (i.e., spelt with an "s") above the door of a pub; when I asked my parents they told me it was unusual but OK. {{u|Nyttend}}, the OED, like other reputable dictionaries, allows the verb "licence", so changing it to some other spelling is a not a change to conform with that dictionary. {{u|Bazonka}} doesn't have consensus for these changes, and is edit-warring over them to boot. He should be asked to stop forthwith. Once he has an established consensus, he can of course go round "fixing" people's correct English to his heart's content, just like the people who go round taking the hyphens out of correctly-formed compound adjectives. ] (]) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, you must have gone to school a very long time ago. Most dictionaries these days don't even include "licence" as a valid alternative verb spelling. ] is very clear about which spelling we should use, and it also states that "Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances". This is all the consensus that I need. Now, if I was changing "license" into "licence" then you'd have a valid case to stop my actions, but going the other way is fully in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of cases, the use of "licenced" or "licencing" in Misplaced Pages articles was not a conscious decision by the writer to use the archaic variant, but instead a mistaken belief that it is the standard current BrE/Commonwealth spelling. This is borne out by the number of thanks I have received after my re-reverts in which I gave a fuller expanation. Move into the modern world Justlettersandnumbers; Misplaced Pages is not the place for archaic spellings. In any case, I've finished now, so I (probably) won't be fixing any more. Have a lovely day. ] (]) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Oh no, please don't stop. I love it when we argue about spelling on ANI. It's better than hyphens, and almost as good as dates. Have we done apostrophes yet? If not, please ping me when we do, I'd so hate to miss that. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 12:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
{{comment}} I just whipped out my NSW Australia "Driver ]" to check, and it is spelled licenCe! Not so archaic, though it expired 17 months ago. Just saying ... ] ] <sup>]</sup> 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:I've just looked at all my paperwork associated with my licence, and it is spelt just like that - "licence". I would suggest that these edits are stopped as the spelling is disputed, and what constructive result can come out of changing them?? ] (]) 07:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::No, that's not what it's about. In US English, it's always ''licen'''s'''e''. In British English, ''licen'''c'''e'' is a noun and ''licen'''s'''e'' is a verb; the latter leads to "licensed bar" and I think the edits being made are to change text like the incorrect/archaic "licenced bar" to the correct "licensed bar". ] (]) 08:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Exactly. I have not changed any noun spellings. "Driver licence" is entirely correct in Australian English, but "Driver licencing" would be wrong. ] (]) 10:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

== Hmains and AWB ==

Would someone please remove Hmains' access to AWB immediately? Despite the lack of consensus for the project, and indeed opposition thereto at ], Hmains has singlehandedly created and populated most or all of the ] tree with AWB. These categories currently contain 9 subcategories and 3,611 pages, most or all of which were put into this tree by AWB edits like . Some of these even contained errors, e.g. , and despite his assurance that "", it's up to . So once again, for flagrant violation of the WP:AWB rule three, ''Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale'', Hmains needs to have AWB access removed immediately. ] (]) 02:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
:I don't understand. What is it -- aside from the errors -- that you find objectionable about these edits? ] (]) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::I re-quote the rules: ''Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue''. Hmains has definitely not gotten consensus for these mass changes, which themselves were controversial at a now-archived discussion at WT:NRHP. He's failed to follow the process, and he's given the project the finger by deciding to ignore that discussion and forcing through his preferred category setup. Yesterday I reminded him to stop (the edit to his talk page immediately before the "I can and do fix any errors" diff), but instead of following the requirements and demonstrating or achieving consensus, he kept on going. This is precisely the "being bold" situation that the rules prohibit; removing AWB from someone who uses it controversially should be just as simple as blocking an account that's being operated as an unapproved bot. ] (]) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::PS, if you were asking for my reason for opposition to the edits themselves (why I would disagree with someone manually making just one edit of this sort), see . Note to another clueless edit by Hmains some time back to a related category (the category is for all historic districts in the state, not just NR-listed districts); this isn't the first time he's made an incorrect or outright wrong series of AWB edits to categories in this topic. ] (]) 02:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
:::"I dont like it" does not make it inherantly controversial, nor does (in advance) of making the edits thinking possibly that someone somewhere will object make it controversial. If every time the possibility of someone objecting to a change made that change 'controversial' nothing would ever get done. I went back through 10 archives and the only discussion related to this was your comment after the fact, so I dont see how Hmain could have been expected to forsee his changes would be considered (by only one person from what I can see) controversial. ] (]) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
::: * '''Agree''' with {{U|Only in death}}. It looks like ], if so, it doesn't really show a concensus. If I'm wrong, feel free to post the correct link. That said, I don't think he'd need permission from WP:NRHP, that would be more or less local consensus, just my .02 ] 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
* OK all, can I continue to create and populate the category tree ] either manually or using AWB (my choice based on what needs to be edited), and without user Nyttend continually threatening to get my edit and/or AWB use privileges taken away and without him doing mass revokes of my work as he did at the time he first posted his complaint here? Thanks. ] (]) 03:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:Neither of you may want to hear this, but I think it might be wiser to bring the discussion back to ]. Looking at the single previous discussion, I don't think anyone anticipated that it would generate that much feeling. If both of you can clearly lay out your preferences for the category hierarchy (I think I would have to doodle for a bit on scratch paper to work that out from the current discussion) and get people to take a close look at the pros and cons, I think a more robust consensus would develop. Not that I like making people jump through hoops, but a flurry of AWB edits is, in practice, a lot more intimidating to other editors than the same tweaks to a single article, and I think it's a good idea to secure a more robust basis for making the changes than "well, I can't actually be blocked for them." ] (]) 15:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::Well, I can certainly try this. Thanks. ] (]) 05:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::See ]. Thanks ] (]) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] drafts in other editor's names ==

] seems to have been blocked back in June following ] but I found a number of draft articles that ''] created but stored under the user ]'' from 2013 . I have no idea of the background of this case nor how these two users knew each other but I'm trying to figure out if pages like ] (] shows about 28 in total]]) should be reviewed/examined/taken to MFD or just G13 nuked. It looks like the articles were created at ] and then copy-and-paste moved out . -- ] (]) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:There's no immediate evidence that T13 created (as in wrote) those articles -- {{U|TheShadowCrow}} did, and T13 merely put them into article space or divided them up into smaller individual sandboxes (see ). There's no way of immediately telling if the two users are the same; one of the things T13 was banned for is socking, but that doesn't mean this was a sock account. {{U|Bbb23}} and/or {{U|DeltaQuad}} should have an opinion on this and/or know what to do. In terms of any usable content, the consensus on two separate MfDs was to '''retain the content''' . ] (]) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::Technical 13 wasn't banned for socking, they retired rather than go through the case. Therefore the provisions of ] apply; I don't think the prior Mfd has much applicability because TheShadowCrow seems to have ceased editing. Per not buro a mass Mfd could be proposed, but even easier would be ignoring them useless there's some issue (e.g. blp/ copyvios...) <small>]</small> 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Actually, his requested block from Floq was changed to an ArbCom site-ban by Euryalus. And '''one of''' (as I stated) the issues was the evidence of sockpuppetry that came to light during the investigation. The site-ban and the abuse of multiple accounts is ]. In my opinion it's worth retaining the material and publishing the drafts live assuming they meet notability. I think it's also worth CUing whether TheShadowCrow was another one of T13's socks or not, since there's already an SPI on him. ] (]) 10:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I am sure if the 28 or so articles (]) were taken to MfD now, they would all be deleted, so to IAR I would just speedy delete everything as a Stale Draft. Pinging {{ping|GiantSnowman}} for his opinion too. ] (]) 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::::TheShadowCrow's last edits seem to have been in May 2014 ], so it seems unlikely there'll be anything for a CU to look at. ] (]) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::::] and as part of that, created the pages in question. I don't see any particular reason to suspect sockpuppetry. ] (]) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are:
{{Hat|list of pages}}
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
# ] => ]
{{hab}} {{hab}}
*'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
many of them have a main-space equivalent already. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC).</small><br />
::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)
:{{@|Yerevantsi}} might know what to do with these. Note that any text reused should be attributed to TheShadowCrow. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC).</small><br />
:There is no hurry to delete these. Perhaps from one form the stale draft project can check to see if they are wroth saving. ] (]) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (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)
:: But by god those have a mangled history. Technical 13's edit summary creating the page gave literally no idea where it came from. It almost would be better if there's anything worth saving to go create a new draft version with an actual link to the original gigantic sandbox rather than keep that edit summary. -- ] (]) 07:14, 5 November 2015 (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 suggest making a null edit with an ]. ] (]) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Complicating matters is that in some cases it seems the sandbox was a copy of the mainspace article that the editor was working on sourcing/improving. ] is an example of this I looked at. ] (]) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. ] ] 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Still, we're talking an editor who created drafts while topic banned from the area into a giant sandbox and then it was copied and pasted over to another sandbox by a different user. I'll take those to MFD that already exist but I'm generally against allowing for any user's content unless it's really good given that they were under a topic ban. It's the same general arguments we have over G13 and content from banned users I guess. -- ] (]) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::: Technical13 was a problematical user. From the start of his account he made pointy edits, resulting in blocks. Then he calmed down enough to get Template Editor rights. Then he reverted to form, several times, and got those rights removed, then blocked. In the midst of this, he decided that being a "mentor" to the ShadowCrow might help him on his path to awesomeness. So he moved some sandboxes. Then the Crow didn't like that, and they had a little fight. Executive summary: If any of this is worth keeping, own it. Otherwise, nuke it. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


== Me (DragonofBatley) ==
== ] De-prodding several random articles without explanation ==


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)
] , came through yesterday and de-prodded several articles and templated the nominators, which speaks to experience with the system. No improvement had bee made to any of the articles and no reasons given for the de-prod. Reasons are not required but just the shear number of de-prods they did plus this post lead me to believe this user may actually be evading a block and just trying to be disruptive. Hopefully someone can look into this to see if it is a case of block evasion.] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 15:25, 3 November 2015 (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)
:Identical behaviour to ]... ] (]) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (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.
:Appears to be a blocked editor: and therefore a block evasion. I think an insta-block is due the IP if all it is doing is de-prodding articles seemingly at random. Or at least a warning and a promise not to do that anymore. Also, if it's a block evasion, needs to definitely be blocked. ] (]) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, all of the past and current IPs are geolocated in the same area. Undoubtedly the same editor. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::What do you think about the block-evasion factor? ? ] (]) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Per ]: "'''{{xt|User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked.}}'''" ] (]) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast with ]. Evaluate each page and consider if it's worth the mental investment to shepherd it through a AFD nomination. I do not see a ban proposal with respect to the IP range so it's my understanding that we have to treat these as AGF and can't apply the ] stick to it. ] (]) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::Why do we have to treat this as AGF there is evidence of a block evasion. The block evasion is what this is looking at now, if it does turn out to be block evasion then the de-prodding can be considered disruptive and reverted. This will also allow us to nip this in the bud if it happens again in the future. ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::: I agree. It/they are obviously ], are obviously block evading, and are playing a game of silly buggers with us, as {{U|Floquenbeam}} would say. Time to stop the nonsense and disruption per ] and ] and ], not to mention multiple accounts. ] (]) 16:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Softlavender}} {{Reply to|Mcmatter}} It would be great, but the problem is that because this is an IP address and therefore isn't officially agreed to ToS, we have to follow the rules with respect to prods {{tq|If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{tlx|proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, '''and tags removed by banned users''' may be restored.}} There is a reasonable belief that there's an objection to deletion (even if it's they don't want anything deleted) therefore we are bound to follow policy. Don't like it? Round up a consensus to change the policy. ] (]) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{reply|Hasteur}} by that logic all IPs should be unblocked now and given free run of the place because they have not accepted the ToS, but this is not the case, if you look at the text just above the save button it states {{tq|By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the <b>Terms of Use</b> and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.}} which means they have agreed to the terms of use and cannot claim freeman rights as you claim. Once again you are missing the major issue of the of block evasion, I have no issues with the PROD issue if the user is not evading a block.] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
:::You have to prove that the editor is block evading. Without proof, there is nothing here that is actionable. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{reply|TheFarix}} this is why I have brought it here as stated in my initial post. This post was never about discussing the PROD policy or system but the actions of a user which seems to be counter intuitive to the project community. ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::So you are asking others to go on a fishing expedition based on unsubstantiated claims of block evasion? —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (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)
I've noticed this user also has a penchant for changing "Delta Airlines" links to "Delta Air Lines" (, , as this user; , , as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E). Not a big deal (Delta Air Lines is the actual name) but a good behavior indicator. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
*The discussion at ] has petered out, that would be the place to discuss making a change to the prod policy. ] (]) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (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)
::Reminder: It's not the prod policy we're talking about, it's disruptive editing. The IPs are a block evader who is simply rampaging through the list of prods and mass deleting all the tags. This is ] and ] no matter how you look at it. IPs that are block evaders must be blocked per ]. IPs that are intentionally mass disruptive must be blocked per ]. -- ] (]) 05:22, 4 November 2015 (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)
:::1) Where is the blocked account? Before you can claim that someone is block evading, you have to identify the blocked account. 2) Removing proddes, even en-mass, is not disruptive editing. These articles can easily be sent to AfD using the exact same rational as the prod. It is also far less disruptive to Misplaced Pages to start an AfD than to argue over the "legitimacy" of a deprod. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 11:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
*Relatedly, is also de-PRODing multiple articles.- ]] 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
*:I had been trying to fight what was obvious vandalism (to me) by this behavior, but if no Admin sees it that way, and it's not considered disruptive, what's a regular editor to do? We have policies and guidelines, and this has been debated multiple times. The PROD process is clearly broken. It IS disruptive, if you force the "obvious" deletions to go through AfD - it takes additional editor time to wade through an AfD. Go ahead, let IP's and sockpuppets steal what actual editing time committed editors have to contribute by forcing it through the AfD process. This is a loophole that any actually allows wholesale vandalism to the project just because we can't add a few words to the PROD process. Say, MUST give a valid reason, or only registered editors can PROD. We limit deletion powers to Admins; why not limit PROD removals to registered editors? Or even Admins? Or Autoreviewers? Or Pending Changes Reviewers? We have some processes that require demonstration of commitment to this project to perform an action. Put deleting PRODs on that list. For that matter, put deleting maintenance tags on that list. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
*::Starting an AfD is not going to "waste" other editors times. Constantly arguing over the legitimacy of prod removals "wastes" far more time than starting an AfD and is much more disruptive. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
*:::Fourteen dePRODs by this IP hopping "editor" in less than 15 minutes today (four in the span of on minute! Clearly, in depth analysis is going on) each will involve at least 5 editors, often more, to evaluate and contribute. That is a very fine act of vandalism if I do say so. Where one Admin could evaluate the PROD, now we multiply that by the participants in AfD and add the Admin back in again to close it. Starting "an" AfD is not the issue - forcing a dozen or more without any evaluation IS the issue. Multiply the editing hours for all of them vs. a single ANI/AIV report - the math is clear. This is actually quite clever trolling, with a flawed policy behind it to support it, so nothing can or will be done. And for those who would choose policy over common sense, then I suggest a change to policy or an implementation of the ] policy to prevent continued damage to the project. Or have we abandondoned ]? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*::::] already because nothing is going to happen. Removing prods is specifically not vandalism and is allowed under the deletion policy. If you truly believe that an article should still be deleted, send it to AfD as the next step. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Hardblocking 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny to do it...I don't need to know which one to see illegitimate behavior. If you see him anymore then you can revert him because he will be evading a block.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:Good block, thank you. ] (]) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


::I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on ] quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on ]. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ] feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:That is an extremely bad block. The editor was acting well within the deletion policy and could dispute whatever and as many prods as he/she chooses. If you want to limit the number of proddes an editor can dispute, either change the policy or take it to ]. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just because something is your right doesn't make it right. De-Prodding just because you can when it is clearly disruptive and generating excessive arguments on multiple admin noticeboards makes the ''de facto'' argument that it ''is'' disruptive editing...but I don't mind my block being reviewed here. We are not an endless pit of labor to be wasted just because someone has an argument. I believe that this editor is avoiding scrutiny. I believe that Misplaced Pages and its editors fare better with this editor blocked so that they quit being a time sink for those involved. That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy. That editor didn't improve a single article did they? I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 03:56, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Good block'''- Mass dePRODS are always just ] attempts to wreck a useful maintenance mechanism for everyone. Staying technically within the wording of policy while deliberately subverting its intent is called ] and should be prevented. It's also likely that this is some returning banned user or other. ] <sub>]</sub> 10:43, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Good block''' ''"That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy."'' Precisely. I'm unsure how anyone sees it otherwise. Policy "allows" us to do many things which we should not do. ''"I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others."'' I'm glad you don't, and I'm glad you acted. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 12:29, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Good block''' - disruptive behavior, clearly. ]] 12:33, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Good block''' - The deprodding was obviously a form of disruption. I agree with the points made by ScrapIronIV and Berean Hunter.- ]] 13:14, 6 November 2015 (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).
*'''Good block''' - Seems pretty obvious their intention was trolling and disruption. ] (]) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block''' - Thank you for taking this seriously. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 14:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block''' - The edits were disruptive and were ] in order to undermine the deletion process, creating unnecessary work for reviewers and admins.--]<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block''' - yes, enough with this dePRODing drama with people who are too into ] to see that disruption is disruption just because the policy doesn't specifically state that mass-deprodding is not one of the "exceptions". ] (]) 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block'''. Simply because a single action is allowed does not mean that a repeated pattern of such actions can't be disruptive. ] (]) 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment/Question''' - First, I agree it was a good block, but I have a question. I came across this editor's actions through an article I had prodded, which they contested. Another editor AfD'd it. I then came across another article where they had contested another editor's prod (I think it was one of Wolfowitz'). After researching, I sent that article to AfD, since it clearly did not meet notability guidelines. After that, I discovered the ip editor had been blocked, and took a look at their edit history. I began to look at each of the article's they had de-prodded. If research showed they did not meet notability criteria, I submitted it to AfD. Sometimes this had already been done by another editor, and if I had an opinion based on guidelines, I !voted at the AfD. However, sometimes the removal of the prod was, in fact, useful. Perfect example was ]. Per ], this is a secondary school, so all that is needed is proof of existence (while I may not agree with the guideline, if it is consensus I've agreed to follow it). That particular article had had the prod tag re-inserted. I removed it, as per the ] policy stated above where if a prod tag is removed, even in bad faith, it cannot be re-added. Then I went to check ], where again, the prod had been re-asserted. However, this time the editor had referenced this discussion (hence my presence here). Sorry about my bloviating, but I felt it necessary to show the trail of thought which led there. So, is there an exception to the Prod rule? If so, I should go self-revert a couple of the other prod re-assertions I did. Thanks for any light you can throw my way. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:], ] states " This section is not a notability guideline. ] and ] are." It's a section of ] which is an essay. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Good block''' and I also second Doug Weller's comment. Schools are not inherently notable simply for existing. ] (] / ]) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - Thanks {{u|Doug Weller}} - and I know that, I used the wrong term (mainly I was trying to wrap up my overlong comment). My point is, that if you AfD an article like that you have 100% chance that it will fail, where there are several editors who quote that essay as being consensus on the topic. No point in wasting editors' time in nominating an article for AfD if it has zero chance of being deleted. And as I said, I disagree with the essence of the essay, was simply attempting to explain why I didn't AfD the article. However, I'm simply trying to learn that if there is ever an exception to the prod rule about not re-applying it? Right now, the guideline seems pretty clear that there isn't. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::If it makes sense to not restore the prod on a particular article based on the merits of that article, then by all means don't restore it. The modification to the WP:PROD rule is just to prevent a loophole that allows indiscriminate mass de-prods. If a user de-prods 100 hundred articles they are likely to be correct on a couple of them, but correct by luck not design. ] (]) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''GOOD BLOCK - he's busted''' He was most certainly deprodding at random or based on his dislike of who placed the block. He deprodded an article on a Russian company (]) that DOES NOT EXIST because it is a scam. Not only are there no references to the company in Russian (the name as it's spelled on its logo "красноленинский+очистительный" brings up a whopping ZERO hits), searching for the name in English -wiki brings up only info about it being a scam! He couldn't have even accused the prodder of COI - the article had only about a dozen edits from the creator (SPA with no other article creations) and a few bots/non-content fixes, and had been largely untouched since it was created in January. It was not possible in any way for there to be any valid reason for deprod. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''GOOD BLOCK'''. What would the process be to change the prod rules so that a deprod by a blocked user can be reversed/ ] (]) 22:08, 9 November 2015 (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.
== Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation ==


: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.
*{{userlinks|Terrorist96}}


: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.
Can an uninvolved administrator please apply the relevant ] rules in case of ]'s abusive comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=689040786&oldid=688923648


: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)
I would do it, but I am obviously involved. --] (]) 16:29, 4 November 2015 (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 stand by my statement. There was nothing abusive about it. This user has taken it upon themselves to remove the infobox from a micronation article whilst many other micronation articles have infoboxes (i.e. ], ], ], ], etc.). The user resides in Croatia, which is a statement of fact. ] (]) 16:40, 4 November 2015 (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)
:: To accuse people of being biased solely because of their nationality is widely recognized to be abusive, especially in this topic area. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. --] (]) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
::I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at ] and ], and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: ].
::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work ===
*Joy: there is obviously no consensus to remove the infobox on the talkpage. If anything its a fairly even split with perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides - in which situation the status quo continues. The RFC is poorly phrased and ultimately leads the respondents to arguing in for treating Liberland as an event rather than a micronation and certainly does not make it clear that the intent is to remove the infobox. Using the (and I disagree entirely with the closer here) the stated consensus to phrase the article as about an event as evidence the infobox should be removed is... well twisty logic at its finest. Thats a content dispute which needs to be hashed out on the talkpage. Terrorist96: regardless if someone is from the country which claims the land in question - it does not make them incapable of editing or having an impartial opinion, and I have not known Joy to edit in a nationalist manner. Disregarding someone's argument because of their ethnicity is not a way to work with people and continuing will likely end up with sanctions under ARBMAC. I suggest you both go back to the talkpage and start a specific Infobox RFC to resolve it. ] (]) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:There I just opened one. Go forth people and decide the future of an infobox on a non-existant micronation! ] (]) 17:32, 4 November 2015 (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)
:: The person who closed the RFC said explicitly that there is consensus, yet somehow you want to relitigate it, and to top it all of you come here apparently in defense of a person who explicitly insulted me by assuming bad faith solely based on nationality. This is beyond ridiculous. --] (]) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{U|Joy}} is the ], if so, {{U|AlbinoFerret}} closed it by saying ''There are two questions in this RFC. Should the article be made into an event article. There is consensus for this. The majority opinion is this is how it is described in reliable sources. That the coverage is about the declaring of a micronation, not that one exists.'' There was nothing stated about the infobox itself. As far as Terrorist96's comments, they were addressed by {{U|Only in death}}, I will also state that his comment was un-called for, making '''any''' comments about someone's ethnicity is flat out wrong. No, Terrorist96 isn't blocked, he was warned, and if he continues, will likely be blocked. No one's thrown you under the bus. ] 20:46, 4 November 2015 (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)
::::To be clear, I never mentioned their ethnicity. I simply said they reside in Croatia, which is a statement of fact as mentioned on their talk page. I don't know their ethnicity nor do I care. The reason it's relevant is because the article is about Liberland, a new country that has been declared on land that's disputed between Croatia and Serbia. Croatia refuses to recognize Liberland, while Serbia claims that Liberland isn't infringing on its territory. Croatia doesn't claim the territory either, but wishes that Serbia would claim it (so as to give credence towards their interpretation of the border). Because Joy resides in Croatia, it was my opinion that they weren't injecting a neutral POV by repeatedly deleting the infobox AND several other paragraphs in the face of multiple other users re-adding them. That's all. I never called Joy anything defamatory nor effused any malice towards their nationality. Thanks for not banning me, but even a warning is unwarranted in this situation, IMHO. ] (]) 01:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::] I'm assuming this is being treated as 'resolved', so can an admin archive it? ] (]) 08:18, 5 November 2015 (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)
::::That is correct, my close did not address an infobox. ] 21:04, 4 November 2015 (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).
::{{U|Terrorist96}} Come on, even though you worded your edit summary carefully, it still '''looks''' like you're talking about her ethnicity without actually outright saying it, kind of like if I said someone resides in north korea therefore they're not neutral on anything about north korea. To me , your statement appears to be impling an ethnic remark, and no neither you nor I should close this out. ] 11:58, 5 November 2015 (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) ===
:::{{U|KoshVorlon}} That's why I picked my words carefully, so that I don't violate any rules. In addition, I'm not the only one that doubts {{U|Joy}}'s neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689073189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689071477 →] (]) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
::::Since the alleged micronation of ] is on land disputed betwen ] and ], it is clearly in the Balkans and thus is covered by discretionary sanctions under ]. I have given ] an alert under those sanctions. ] (]) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* I suggest taking this to ]. -- ] (]) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::Redundant now. As T has not been warned previously, all that can be done is a formal warning. Which Ed just did. ] (]) 00:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I still don't see how even a warning is justified when all I did was 1. Make a statement of fact (Joy resides in Croatia); 2. State my opinion that it seems like she's not acting neutrally (by 1. deleting the infobox multiple times after it had been restored by several different users - none of which were me; 2. Deleting several paragraphs when there was actually no consensus to remove any of those things, as has been evidenced here); 3. State my opinion that I think she should be restricted from making edits to the article because of her numerous disruptive edits. I never denigrated her nationality nor attacked her as a person in any way whatsoever. I did nothing different than what this user did (with seemingly impunity): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689073189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689071477 Furthermore, in order to gauge her neutrality, I asked why she is fixated on removing the infobox for Liberland only and not removing it for other micronations (i.e. ], ], ], ], etc.) and I didn't get a convincing reply. If after all of this, you still think a warning is justified, then I don't know how else I'm supposed to layout my thoughts without offending anyone. I genuinely feel like I did nothing wrong. ] (]) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Arbcom warnings are not purely used as a "you do that again and you're going to get it!" type warnings. They're more of a "please be careful how you approach this article (and topic area) as there are sanctions associated with it." All editors who edit in Arbcom sanctioned topics usually get this warning regardless of whether they've actually done anything wrong. Many topic areas are covered by sanctions, articles on the Balkans, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, American Politics, Gun control, just to name a few are all covered by sanctions and every editor working on those articles are issued with these reminders. ] (]) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Terrorist96 isn't blocked, he was warned, and if he continues, will likely be blocked." - ]. But your point is taken, thank you. ] (]) 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


:'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
:::::: Please stop engaging in this kind of wikilawyering. It's just too transparent. --] (]) 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD.
:'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.


The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== Tendentious editing, personal attacks, and use of multiple accounts ==


==== Uninvolved editors ====
{{userlinks|6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38}}, who also uses the account {{userlinks|6-A04-W96}}, has been editing tendentiously on ]. He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy" (see ), even though four different users have disagreed with him, see ] and ]. When {{u|Rajmaan}} disagreed with him, he as a troll. I then against using personal attacks, but he responded by .
* '''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)
The person has been using at least two accounts on both en-wiki and the Commons (although to be fair, he does not attempt to conceal the fact). One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism . -] (]) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


==== Involved editors ====
Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English[REDACTED] simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there with one of his accounts for disruption and runs the risk of of getting blocked again if he disrupts with his other account. This is cross-wiki disruption.] (]) 05:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also '''support''' option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. '''Oppose''' option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose all''', as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --] (]) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''C''' if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: {{tq| If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree.}} I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) ] (]) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Prefer''' the less stringent '''option A''' because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on ], all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. ''']''' (]) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with ] and ]. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. ] (]) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring ], I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - ] (]) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::@] at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. ] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Discussion ====
: For information, that's the same user than {{userlinks|Pseudois}} (that worked on en: and fr:, with a lot of unfair edits and removing of sourced informations and their references. He said in late 2014, it will work no more on[REDACTED] before creating the {{userlinks|6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38}} account in february 2015 and working the same way.] (]) 15:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* 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)


== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
Agree with all above users. What he did was considered disruptive and it is now clear it was exactly him who makes POV push and tendentious edits in various pages in both Misplaced Pages and Commons. --] (]) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
# '''About my[REDACTED] accounts.''' I have contributed for over five years, with no history of sanction whatsoever, in different Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia projects, with the following two successive accounts: from July 2010 to November 2014 and from February 2015 to early November 2015. As I decided to stop contributing, I asked both accounts to be blocked (on and ) in order to prevent any kind of vandalism or disruptive editions on my personal pages. A couple of hours after I asked my account to be closed, I noticed that user:zanhe template I had inserted. The template was removed despite several points raised by different contributors since years were not addressed. As 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 was blocked (upon my own request), I therefore created the account for the sole purpose of reinserting the template and providing replies to the new comments on the talk page. The choice of the account name made it clear I was the same contributor.
# "'''When Rajmaan disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll (…) he responded by calling me a troll as well.'''" Rajmaan was continuously attempting to derail and personalise the discussion with his countless digressions. While I consistently attempted to put back the discussion on the right track, "''Thats not what you tried to say (…)you clearly didn't read (…) Are you going to claim that (…) You made your purpose here clear (…) you are clearly interested in deleting Tibet from the map and not actually interested in anything else''". I did not call him a troll, but considered this attempt at derailing the discussion a "". I never called Zanhe a troll, but maintained in my talk page that was indeed a trolling attempt.
# "'''One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism'''". See above about my contribution history. I believe this block is a clear misunderstanding and have asked (per e-mail) the common admin responsible for the block to reconsider it.
# "'''It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English[REDACTED] simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there'''" This is pure nonsense and is another illustration of the countless insinuations I had to face from these contributors: in en.wikipedia were made '''before''' the account was .
# "'''Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. (…) This is cross-wiki disruption'''". The discussion was . When I came across this discussion 6 years later, I consistently continued the discussion where it started. As this page is not visible for non en.wp contributors, I inserted in the common page so that the discussion remains centralised.
# "'''He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy", even though four different users have disagreed with him'''". First of all the words "''modern fantasy''" and "''digital manipulation''" have been . I believe the inclusion of the "''Disputed factual accuracy template''" in the file description was more than justified. A look at the talk page shows that at least 7 different contributors have raised/acknowledged issues with this map, many of those have only be partly addressed or not addressed at all:
:*13 July 2010: "The map is a modern fantasy, and have no historical basis"
:*14 July 2010: "Actually there are multiple reasons (…). That region was never solely owned by Qing Empire (…) Territories to the east of Khabarovsk were not populated not by russians not by Chineese and should be shown as neutral (…) In fact Chinese borders never not then not later crossed Amur river (…) Daur rulers decided to pay the tribute to the Qing, but that was never accepted by the Russian empire (…) Sakhalin was not known to the both empires (…) etc."
:*10 September 2011: "(…) is right on this one. Heilongjiang, Jilin, "Uliassutai", Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet are all shown as provinces on this map even though, in 1820, all of these areas were outside of the China proper and were not administered as provinces and in many cases had only a weak tributary relationship with the Qing. In the case of some Turkic areas and most Tibetan areas (current Tibet, Qinghai, and western Sichuan), there was not even effective Qing control (…)I invite the author of the map or other users to address these issues so that the map or something similar can continue to be used in articles"
:*22 September 2011: "Interesting logic regarding Sakhalin. How someone can own something, if they don't even know how it looks like?"
:*23 September 2011: "I have stated my view above. I think it should be shown as unexplored and not claimed by anybody, i.e. gray"
:*21 April 2012: "this map is modern fantasy, and have no historical basis for another reason: during the Qing dynasty there was no dotted-line as shown in the small box at the bottom left corner, The 11-dotted-line was not included in China map until 1946 or 1947"
:*29 October 2012: "Good points. There continue to be issues with this map that have not been addressed. Qinghai was not a province in 1820 (and as the map notes, Xining, its capital, was part of Gansu until 1928), Manchuria is not shown on the map. The whole Inner Mongolia/"Uliassutai"/Huijiang division is questionable. (…) instead of starting with present-day boundaries and working backward, it would be better generated by working with contemporary sources as well as present-day sources that display a bit more heft than a Baidu Baike map
:*13 May 2014: "The Chinese nine-dash map didn't appear until the Republican era in 1947. Based on which historical basis does it appear in this map of 1820 China?"
:*14 May 2014: "I can not see nine-dash map in these maps. Why does this map have? Any evidence?"
:*1 June 2014: "Why is this map used at all? Is it based on a real map? Why not use that map instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?"
:*29 October 2015: "Agree. This map, as well as other similar fantasy maps produced by wikipedians should be removed and replaced by real maps."
:*1 November 2015: "There might be relative minor issues need to be corrected (we can do it of course), such as in the case of Aksai Chin. Since the maps are generally identical, your claim that "they are not based on reliable secondary sources" is an exaggeration. Any other issues can you find besides Ladakh?"
:*2 November 2015: "1) Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. 2) List of tributary/vassal states is completely different. 3) Internal subdivisions are not mentioned on the Oxford map, see for example the 5-6 subdivisions for Tibet."
To mention just one example, the way Sakhalin is represented has been disputed for over five years! "''Tendentious editing''", I believe, is not made by the contributor adding a " ''Disputed accuracy template''", but clearly by those who have removed it, such as and .


] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
I perceive this ANI as an attempt to tarnish my past contributions, and object to the three points raised above:


Diffs:
* "'''Multiple accounts'''". The use of successive accounts did not breach any Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia policy.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
* "'''Personal attacks'''". I never called "troll" any of the two contributors mentioned above, but have considered the continuous attempts to personalise and derail the discussion by Rajmaan a trolling attempt.
* 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)
* "'''Tendentious editing'''". Considering the many concerns raised by the majority of contributors about the accuracy of the map, the removal of the " Disputed accuracy template" should be considered tendentious editing, but certainly not its inclusion.--] (]) 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
: Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078
::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
:Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
:These edits were suggested by the following user:
:*]
:] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Found another bad date in another article:
::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ]
::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Found another bad date in another article:
:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
:::Suggested by user:
:::*]
:::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
:::::-]
:::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
::::::::::::As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —] (]) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>moved down from the middle of the above comment (]). &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. ] (]) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Unsupervised bot and script use has ]. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix ].... ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We're into ]. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. ] (]) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{pb}}I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to {{u|Whoop whoop pull up}} two weeks ago () about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed ''me'' to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have ''continued'' to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at {{Section link|User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Checking IABot runs}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. ''Both'' should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here ''neither''. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:] is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
:* Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
:** ] says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, '''whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page'''" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
:** BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of ]. Now, ROLE ''does'' have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple '''managers'''", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're ''developed and maintained'' by a team of people (rather than ones that can be ''used'' by multiple people).
:** Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to ''50,000'' pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the ''only'' people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved ''despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible''; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they ''were, in fact, approved'' implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
:** ] seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
:** ] says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ''''", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
:** ] provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
:* Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
:** ] says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved ''despite'' the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
:] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
::"Both should take reponsibility"
::-] at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? ] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
::::Policy is very clear, '''don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus.''' ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. {{pb}}These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. ] (]) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Or, as ] puts it: {{tq|Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.}} ] (]) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Citation bot has not been {{tqq|approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking}}. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at {{slink|User:Citation bot|Bot approval}}. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.{{pb}}But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.{{pb}}If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. ] (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot.]] 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::☝🏽{{Pb}}It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.{{pb}}I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.{{pb}}Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.{{pb}}Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.{{pb}}I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against {{u|Abductive}} or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion ''somewhere'' specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping {{u|AManWithNoPlan}}, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots ''and'' checking the results.<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).{{pb}}However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.{{pb}}Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.{{pb}}Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, ] (]) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"}} Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. ] (]) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


: The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:* ''Multiple accounts'': I see your accounts have been blocked on French wiki upon your own request (after you ran into disputes with other editors), but aren't you required to request unblocking before editing again, rather than creating multiple new accounts? Besides, your account {{u|6-A04-W96}} has been blocked on the Commons for vandalism , not as a result of your own request. And none of your accounts have (yet) been blocked on English wiki, yet you keep creating new ones ({{u|Comptetemporaire2015}} is the fourth that I'm aware of).
::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:* ''Tendentious editing'': You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users. Old issues such as the 9-dash-line and Sakhalin have long been addressed, both on the ] and on the , yet you keep repeating them. ] is a typical behaviour of tendentious editors.
*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)
:* ''Personal attacks'': Accusing of other people of "trolling" is personal attack . I cautioned you against it, which you summarily reverted while repeating the trolling accusation . -] (]) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::* ''Multiple accounts'': Ironically, I am one of the few here who has never contributed simultaneously under different identifications, as it is the case of ] aka ] or aka aka (I am not insinuating though that the simultaneous use of multiple identification by these contributors is breaching policies). It was quite obvious that the account was blocked and tagged as a "vandalism-only account" '''by error'''. After I made the , '''the block was immediately reverted by the same admin''' (see and ).
*:: 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)
::* ''Personal attacks''. I don't see any new element in the comment above, it is just repeating over and over the same point (]).
*:::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)
::* ''Tendentious editing'': The four contributors above have continuously claimed that issues raised by other contributors had long been solved and that I was the only one disputing the factual accuracy of the current map (e.g. "" "", "", "", "", "", "")
*:::: 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)
:::# A quick look at the file history shows that it was and that the section "" was created by ] on 1st June 2014. No change was made to the map between 1st June 2014 until I added the "" tag.
*:::::1. Not a news article.
:::# Representation of Sakhalin (as an example): even though Zanhe keeps affirming that "", this is clearly not true. It is now 4 years since a contributor indicated that , without any correction made afterwards. To the opposite, Zanhe claims that the outline of the map is , while Sakhalin is clearly excluded from the Qing territory in this map. I tried to explain him that . In new attempt to justify the inclusion of Sakhaline, zanhe (all of them posterior to 1820, which is the year the "digital manipulation" is supposed to represent). Ironically, in 3 out of the 4 cherry-picked maps, the southern part of Sakhalin island is shown as belonging to… Japan!
*:::::2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless.
:::# As DHN mentioned in his , "countless anachronisms" do still persist on this map. As there were no further correction to the map afterwards, tagging its factual accuracy as disputed cannot be qualified as POV pushing. But removing this tag ( and ) is a clear attempt at denying the multiple anachronisms still affecting the map.--] (]) 11:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*:::::3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. ] (]) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
:::::: 19th-century boundaries, unlike modern ones, were often vague and fluid, especially in remote wildernesses. As anyone can see in the dozens of 19th-century Qing maps presented in the by {{u|Popolon}} and myself, no two maps were identical, and people can always find fault with whichever map we use. Sakhalin is included in Qing in many maps, excluded in some, and half-included in yet others. Our map does include it, but clearly explains that it was claimed but unexplored (same situation as much of Siberia in 19th-century Russia). In any case, ANI is not the place for content disputes (which belong to the file talk page), but is for discussion of user behaviour, such as personal attacks, use of multiple accounts, and tendentious editing. -] (]) 08:09, 9 November 2015 (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.
:{{ping|Comptetemporaire2015}} - why did you abandon the Pseudois account, and why have you now used 4 separate accounts? I'd be inclined to suggest you pick one and stick with it (I've blocked 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 and 6-A04-W96 by the way). ]] 12:47, 8 November 2015 (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.
::He also uploaded pictures with wrong description, see here, , this picture was mainly used in french wikipedia, as a road signs in ] (Xinjiang road signs have arabian writing on them), this is motorway entrance in ], from center-city to a eastern suburb. If it is really the author of all its uploaded pictures (EXIF time removed), I don't understand, as is also uploaded Xinjiang pictures, like here ], how this confusion can be done, there is more than 1000 km between Xinjiang border and Xi'an. All of this contributions seems to be oriented against People Republic of China, and han chinese, and for Tenzin Gyatso (13th Dalaï-lama) PoV. ), was removed in french wikipedia, or the detail about relation between Tibet and or Chinese Empire (the maps problem) too. He tried to remove information about Tibet I added, that was not in this interest, like , ), (]), etc... This main behavior is to remove content due to minor error instead, of correct it or move it the good section. (, goes clearly in this direction (chinese panel with english grammar errors, ''Which one is a false lama?'' with the picture of the lastest panchen-lama, that has no meaning looking at history of lama leader choices)). He added that should not be bad outside the current context. breackage of an article about tibetan muslims two parts and with reference removal, some missing references half broken and without any new information, and finally on the first one (looks like disorganization purpose on anything about Tibet that isn't bouddhist without any advantage) ] (]) 12:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Unless there is a direct request from an admin to comment a specific point, I will abstain to comment this rather incoherent rant. Popolon, for your information, the "false lama" I was referring to is obviously the ], which, although being a ], is not a lama. Get your biology right and do question your own bias in the way you perceive my contributions before continuing to insinuate everywhere that my contributions are biased. Thanks,--] (]) 13:17, 9 November 2015 (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.
== Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by ] at the Reference Desks ==


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.
] was blocked indefinitely in August for posting controversial anti-semetic material at the reference desks in the guise of asking questions.


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)
He created an admitted sockpuppet ] to protest being blocked, then erased that socked comment form his talk page.. (See also the suspiciously overlapping ])


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


=== PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future ===
Mrandrewnohome then promised "" and was unblocked.


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


=== Response and apology from PEPSI697 ===
*
*


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)
We have articles on ] and ] indicating their anti-semitic nature. This site, referencing the first item is typical in asking whether or not Jews are actually by necessity racist liars and murderers.


: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.
Hence after two months we have the same user returning ''not to edit the project'', but again to seek commentary on what he says is a "university project".
:Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There is guidance on how to use the {{tlx|Talk header}} found on its documentation page at ] and also at ]. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in ] and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like ], ], ], ], ] for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at ] or ]. -- ] (]) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with ], but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get ] article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od|5}} Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- ] (]) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Non-neutral paid editor ==
* (a rambling essay)
*
*


@] 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)
Given the user has shown an ability to edit the project, but not to keep his promise to stay away from posting controversial questions on "Jewry" at the ref desks, I propose a narrow '''topic ban preventing posting any questions or comments at the ref desks regarding Jews and Nazism''' or related topics. ] (]) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* Look, I don't know. I warned him about asking those types of questions and while yeah asking for Nazi propaganda is out there, there aren't questions being asked or anything argumentative or even a posting of something inflammatory. It is two requests for things that while untasteful, still do exist. I don't see any commentary here at all, just a description of where a source for those items could be found. I'm not comfortable that asking to find Nazi propaganda should itself be considered grounds for presuming that someone actually agrees with the propaganda especially when there hasn't been a response and there hasn't been any editing in support of those sources. As I note , there is examples to be found in the works of a professor at ] so it's possible to find ] in the university study argument. -- ] (]) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


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


*{{tqq|So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this}} Uh, guys? Does ] mean nothing to you? - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::There's a request that a user who seems obsessed with the topic and unable to keep his promises of "never again" to be held to the words under which he was restored: a request that an admitted sockpuppeteer whose first edits under his own name after being restored violated that promise be held to his word
*:@] - 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)
::And a request that someone who posts images and texts libeling Jews for being Jews and naming non-Jews as Jews be narrowly blocked from bringing up the topic of Judaism and Nazism at the ref desks.
*::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)
::See, for example, the user's post of (The un referenced image names 3/4 of the media and government as at least crypto-jews, if not "worse") when he last promised not to post controversial "questions" about Jews under the guise of University projects.
*:::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)
::It should be quite obvious that no real university student would be referencing such blatantly racist ] violations without motivation. And the user has not gone back to editing WP as promised;
*::::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)
::He has gone back to bringing up libels of Jews.
*:::::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)
::] (]) 06:30, 5 November 2015 (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)
::: The problem before was ] issue and baiting questions at the Humanities desk. There isn't anything of that matter at the moment to me. Someone who wanted to seriously work on the ] page would want to look for Nazi examples of the material for a reference. As to whether or not any real university student would refer to that material, it ''is'' the actual study by a real academic so it is material that ''can'' be studied. My undergrad had numerous people who picked extraordinarily controversial topics like that and I'd rather deal with people interested in that by pointing them to academics who can objectively call it garbage rather than just topic banning and immediately going after any discussion on the topic. But that's clearly a minority viewpoint here. -- ] (]) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] back to Andrewjlockley ===
*'''Support''' indefinite topic ban from anything remotely connected with the "question" asked ]. ] is wonderful but, particularly given the background, asking how to get a translation of the "Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity" is '''''trolling'''''. ] (]) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. '''However''', that does not change the fact she has been one of a '''literal handful''' of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in ] over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
*I tend to agree with that this seems like trolling more than posing legitimate questions. ] (]) 10:56, 5 November 2015 (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.
*'''Support''' topic ban in the name of not feeding the trolls. ] (]) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
*'''Support''' topic ban, this is getting ridiculous. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban. Would support indefinite ban if asked. Racism has no place here. ] (]) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC) :P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
:::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though.
::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ]&thinsp;] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
:::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
:::
:::
:::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result.
::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway.
::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
:::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among .
:::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the .
:::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ]&thinsp;] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


* Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
] was notified of this discussion, but responded to me on my talk page rather than here. I advised him that he should respond at the ANI, and repeated my encouragement to him to edit productively, which he is eminently capable of and has done in the past. Perhaps Andrew would consider voluntarily promising to a topic ban? In any case, here is his comment on my talk page, and my response: "". ] (]) 21:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*:This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. ]&thinsp;] 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for someone who is indistinguishable from a troll to repeatedly ask questions about Jewish plans to destroy gentiles. The user can use the topic ban as evidence for their third year dissertation to note that some online communities do not encourage such nonsenses. ] (]) 00:13, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Request Admin Comment''' do we need an RfC or some other sort of discussion to institute this proposal? Thanks. ] (]) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*:@] I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:: No, I'd say any uninvolved admin can impose a ] block. As to a topic ban, any uninvolved admin can impose an ] such as that via a consensus of the noticeboard discussion here. -- ] (]) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (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)
:Ah, the usual Assume Bad Faith mentality from certain RD editors. Asking for the translation of an historic article is "obvious trolling". Spamming an antisemitic website on the other hand seems acceptable. Medeis placed that same link also on the talk page of the "accused". Does she think it is a WP:RS? ] (]) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (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? ===
== Edit Wars with Flyer22 Reborn ==
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)
Flyer22 Reborn has unjustifiably deleted my edits on the basis that edits should only reflect community consensus instead of actual peer reviewed publications made by scientists/researchers. In other words, he/she wants to control information on Misplaced Pages and will not allow others to contribute actual scientific data. Help resolve this issue so I can edit instead of getting reverted by this troll.
::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ].
::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile ===
These are the pages I have edit wars with: , ,


<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)
Need your administrator assistance ASAP. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This looks like a routine content dispute, {{U|Doe1994}}, complicated by the other editor's accusations that you are a sockpuppet. Instead of denying that, you resorted to personal atttacks, calling the other editor a "bitch" and a "fucking troll". Your behavior has been far from exemplary. Please mend your ways. ] ] 05:50, 5 November 2015 (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.
:'''Uninvolved editor comment''': the editor filing the complaint failed to follow the guideline above and notify ], on her '''''talk''''' page, that this issue is being raised, instead pasting a broken link to the user page. I cannot speak for Flyer, but I seldom look at my user page unless editing it, so this user-page notice is insufficient to notify her that this issue has been raised here. (Another user has placed a courtesy note on Flyer's talk page, so presumably she will make an appearance here to discuss the reverts in question.) <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 05:56, 5 November 2015 (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)
::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)
] ] Yeah, my bad I'm sorry I lost my temper and I'm sorry towards ] for calling her a "bitch". I am also a noob here so I don't have perfect knowledge how to notify people properly. However this issue is very critical because it shows there are some people like ] who is suppressing and restricting others from posting newer or relevant peer reviewed sources. As someone who is a regular follower of Peer reviewed journals, I find it unacademic that[REDACTED] allows individuals to restrict others from posting new official data. Flyer22's defence is that posts have to comply with community consensus which I find is irrational since that's not what the[REDACTED] rules says.The guidelines says you can post as long as the sources are valid. Community consensus should be frowned upon if peer reviewed sources outmatch any of their opinions. ] ]
*:{{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)
:{{U|Doe1994}}, the editor you are in a dispute with is not a troll by any definition of the term, and personal attacks will get you nowhere, except possibly blocked. Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, and railing against consensus is also unproductive. Not every peer-reviewed journal article is a good source, especially for any medical related article. We have a strong preference for review articles which analyze a large number of primary research articles. Please read and understand ]. In every Misplaced Pages article, editors working together are responsible for summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, not battling to get their favorite peer-reviewed article included as a reference. ] ] 06:24, 5 November 2015 (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).
::Looks like there was a bit of aggression on both sides. I don't like editors who just revert edits "because a sock made them" without giving some other auxillary reason to back it up <small>(eg: POV pushing, unsourced, BLP violations etc - I'm not saying ''you'' did this, these are just examples off the top of my head)</small>, and equally I don't like people who respond in kind. ] is not my thing, but from a quick look at the content, I would say that Cullen328 is correct in terms of content, and the sources you use don't look like highly respected medical journals. Start a discussion on ] and stake your claim as to why the sources you use are suitable. Flyer22 is not out to get you, and when in a dispute, it is always best to put personal differences aside and focus ''only'' on content - it can be annoying at the best of times but it really is the only sane way to resolve things. tl;dr - Flyer22, don't revert for no reason <small>(])</small> based on content, Doe1994, don't dish out insults when you're angry. Are we done? ] ] ] 10:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:
:::I have to point out that Flyer22 has an '''''excellent''''' record in regard to recognizing sockpuppets. In my experience, she is right far more often then she is wrong. (In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any cases in which it was '''''proven''''' that she was wrong, just cases which have not yet come to fruition). ] (]) 10:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
:::Well, no. If a sock made edits, and unless they're fixing vandalism or a BLP violation, I'm not expecting an auxiliary reason for a revert. Editors in good standing have enough to deal with without having to check the sock's edits for accuracy, NPOV, ], etc. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* 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.
::::I see to be in the minority of admins who can hand on heart say that I don't give a flying toss who made an edit as long as it improves the encyclopedia, and we have the whole cause / effect thing back to front. Socks don't really get their edits reverted because they're socks, they get undone because the behaviour that caused the original block has ''not been fixed in the sock'' and they revert to type. If this is a genuine long-term problem, somebody will be able to direct me at an earlier ANI thread and say "aw jeez, not this again". ] ] ] 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* 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 ].
:::::Some editors tend to see someone agreeing with someone they either know or consider a sockpuppet and draw the conclusion "Yep, that's another one." Not saying Flyer22 did that, necessarily, nor am I taking the OP's word against her. It's just something I've noticed in 12 years here, not a second of which was spent/wasted on sockpuppetry. Other editors tend to be pretty sharp with new editors or even older editors who slip up. It happens, and it's difficult to not react in kind, especially if the experienced editor in question has an itchy template finger - but I learned the hard way to not take an unjustified accusation, say, of editwarring personally. I wound up apologizing for (unjustifably) jumping into ANI to complain about being template-bombed on my user talk page with accusations of editwarring which were technically true.
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.
:::::I agree with Ritchie that the quality of the edit matters more than intuition or detective work pointing to an editor being a sockpuppet. I was falsely accused of it once, confronted my accuser and demanded he retract the accusation or bring it to an admin. That editor couldn't be bothered to either apologize or take it to the next level with an admin (I'd have welcomed either). The excellent point Ritchie made was to make good edits, regardless of what people think you might be. To which I add, if you're not a sockpuppet, unfortunately, no one's going to apologize for making a mistake in your case. Just consider what's in it for you here, and study the same stuff I haven't studied closely enough in 12 years of cleaning up content here. I'm going to relearn what I ought to have down cold by now. That's what you have to do. ] (]) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Except that this user did not make helpful edits, he inserted poor quality material that was not suitable. It is also very inappropriate to say to another user "You're not a rad feminist or some troll are you?" as Doe1994 did at his talk page. A very brief review of the evidence shows we have a problem user trying to bully another and I heartily recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


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.
In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of almost everyone of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that everywhere to everyone and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).] (]) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Hey ho, {{U|Cebr1979}}. Let's tell the truth here, please, about her "accusing almost everyone of being a sock". I have interacted with her for several years, and she has never once accused me of being a sock. She has never accused ''any'' productive editor of being a sock. So, it seems that your definition of "almost everyone" is "all the disruptive, unproductive editors". That's because her attention is directed toward disruptive, unproductive editors. Show me a counterexample. You can't. So stop being disruptive, and all will be well. Repent, and improve the encyclopedia. Thank you in advance for your compliance. ] ] 08:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::Put the poms poms down, Cullen. Fine, let's change my "almost everyone" to "an awful lot of people" and... VOILA! The message is still true: In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of an awful lot of people of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that to an awful lot of people and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).] (]) 08:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I have interacted with Flyer22 occassionally on talk pages in the past (before she was reborn) without any problems, but ] was a bit perplexing to me at the time, especially since the "{{diff|Talk:Rick Grimes|next|644216320|makes me think that you are Marchjuly}}" part seemed to be really a bit of a reach. In hindsight, however, I realize her concerns were genuine and she was just basing them on her experiences in other similar situations. Moreover, she did apologize which is to her credit. Everyone has a bad hair day every now and then, and occassionally one's ] goes on the fritz. I don't think commenting on another editor's behaviour (i.e., pointing out what you percieve to be a possible problem) is a bad thing as long as the discussion remains civil. So, if you're claiming there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior on her part, then I think you're going to have to be willing to provide more specifics (i.e., diffs) for others to see and assess. -- ] (]) 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Go to her talk page.] (]) 23:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, you're going to need to be more specific than that. Nothing stands out at a glance. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:01, 8 November 2015 (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)
== ]-banned ]'s articles ==


I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
I'm not sure if here or ] is the best place for this, but since I want as many editors (not just administrators) to weigh in on it, I've brought it here. ]/]/] (etc.) has left three messages on my talk page, which concern his using Misplaced Pages to publicize his material, socking, how he can't be deterred, and his war against the anti-] crowd. '''See ] for more detail.''' So I of course was disappointed and frustrated to see that ] restored two of his articles -- ] and ], stating in the logs, "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." and "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." See for further detail. I told Sadads, in part, "I recognize in other ways that a ] topic should perhaps not be deleted. But as ], ], ] and others can tell you, we are dealing with a very serious sock/banned editor in this case, one who loves to publicize his work on Misplaced Pages, usually for shameful ulterior motives, and has openly declared a war against Misplaced Pages editors. And I don't see why it should at all be encouraged. I don't see that these articles or any other articles this editor creates are quality content; this editor's articles are usually based on one or two sources, are often non-notable, ], and/or don't comply with ]. If a topic is WP:Notable, we should leave it up to good editors to create, not editors like this one. I stated , in part. "His latest post on my talk page was titled 'I can't be deterred; I can only be temporarily incapacitated'; if that were the case, he would not feel the need to rant on my talk page after I obliterate his socks and work. Deleting his work does deter him. And temporarily incapacitating him is also good. Just imagine the frustration and/or anger that exploded in him when seeing that I'd gotten all of his articles (which were a lot, and are now memorized by me...title-wise) deleted, except the remaining three that I will be sure to continue pursuing deletion for as well." The third article is ]. I think all the other articles were deleted; I'll check again at some point.


<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
So my questions are this: Should we, under any circumstance, accept an article by this editor, especially given the aforementioned statements he posted on my talk page? For example, when the article is deleted under ], should it be restored because it's ] or perceived as WP:Notable by the administrator? Below are options and a discussion section for this matter, to help gauge different views. I'll alert ] and ] to this discussion.
ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.


] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
===Delete any new article by this editor, WP:G5-type or otherwise ===
*'''Support''', per what I stated above. ] (]) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Partial support''' I guess but I object to the whole idea of any further arguments about this at ANI. This is not something that requires admin conduct other than in the pure technical issue of restoration. It's something that should be based on a consensus and not a consensus based on people who visit the drama board so to speak. -- ] (]) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ]. Anyone restoring needs (a) to take full responsibility for the article and (b) to explain why proxying for a banned editor is a good idea. ] (]) 23:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per JohnCD. Banned users are not welcome to contribute to this project in any capacity, no matter what quality. If admins don't intend to enforce this ban, then stop pretending that it means anything and lift it. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (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.
===Delete only under certain circumstances===
:FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: ] and ], then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
:FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
:If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for ] apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from ]? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
:Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
:Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks ''in this thread'' but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." ] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't ] or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are ], which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.{{pb}}Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact , which states that {{tq|he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.}} This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". ] (] · ]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to ], or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. ] (]) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::did report to ] ] (]) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they ''do'' make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we ''do'' allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. ''edits'' that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] put this back into our court. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. ] (]) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile ===
*'''Comment''': The article would have to be pretty spectacular, and/or significantly expanded by a different editor for me to be okay with keeping it. ] (]) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
<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>
:: The ] involved a GA that people thought could become a FA, as an example. -- ] (]) 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


:::<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)
===Don't delete non-WP:G5-compliant articles by this editor===
::::Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?
::::
::::By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on ] (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).
::::] is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)
::::I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those ''grey areas'' while editing the ] article as mentioned above by ]. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the ] article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged").
::::Oh and should the ] where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). ] (]) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::For the topic ban, you can add it to ]. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about ]. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being {{tq|a pioneer in opposing SRM research}} is sourced... to ETC Group itself). ] (] · ]) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a ]. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.
::::::For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. ] (]) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at ] violated ] quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
:::::::Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I ''tried to'' make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.
::::::::Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."
::::::::I believe my edits for the ] article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. ] (]) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page ''on the topic of ESG and its affiliates''. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a ''symptom'' of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like at SRM and at ] (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
===Take the discussion elsewhere===
* '''Delete them and take them to ] for separate discussions there'''. See below. -- ] (]) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Agree with this but the question remains about what to do in the situation where an admin undeletes a G5 article unilaterally. My feeling is that the admin now takes responsibility for the content and any deficiencies. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::: Same situation, different CSD criteria, what's done? If an admin uniltarally undeletes a page speedied deleted under other criteria, say A7, I think that's a fair IAR and wheel warring dispute to bring back to ANI but wouldn't the article be re-deleted and then taken to DRV? I think we need to look at this on an article by article basis rather than a remedy on the editor basis. -- ] (]) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


:IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion===
:<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)
When the last G5 issue came up, I stated that I did not believe that ANI is the proper location for these G5 arguments (whether or not it was an appropriate IAR to restore G5 articles). Same here again. G5 falls under the other CSD criteria and we have a system for discussing restoration following a CSD-based deletion, namely ]. This is the wrong venue and we need to come up with a more systematic way of handling these than just ANI arguments. It's too complicated for here. There is no reason why people should be using ANI discussions to formulate a consensus around G5 discussions when we have a much better place that already deals with restorations following A7, A1, and many other CSD deletions (including I believe wholesale deletions for copyright violations). It would also be a better place for someone to bring a new draft if they want to argue for restoration based on not using the G5 problem editor's work, much better than arguing it here at ANI. -- ] (]) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (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)


===Voluntary restrictions===
:], thank you. I understand what you mean, even though I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is. ] (]) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Ping|EMsmile}} Just clarifying
:: Would ] be a good start? There is already ] about images with G5. The issue is whether we want to change the wording for G5 (then WPT:CSD works) or just IAR to get around the literal meaning of G5 (at which point there's no real discussion place other than ANI for whether the IAR is appropriate). Let's see if anyone else cares about my point as no one seemed to last time. -- ] (]) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
*Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?


Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry for the late reply; I was waiting to see what others had to state about all of this. Not much, it seems. So far anyway. Given that I alerted that talk page and the WP:Sockpuppet talk page to this discussion, and there has yet to be substantial commentary from those two pages on this issue, and since WP:ANI has many more eyes than those talk pages, I don't see how taking the discussion directly to the criteria for speedy deletion talk page would help. Also, for this discussion, my main focus is on this editor; there is not quite another like him. While there are editors who do not mind if content comes from a WP:Sock, especially if the content improves Misplaced Pages, I think they should mind when the content comes from an editor like this one. His WP:ArbCom ban is serious, and I can't go into all the details here, but I will state that I can't support a person like this (unless he reverted vandalism, or removed some other very problematic edit). He is not so much concerned with Misplaced Pages, as he is concerned with his own ego and promoting himself and his views. And, as far as I'm concerned, his poor articles are not an improvement, especially when they are WP:POV forks. That stated, I very much understand what you mean about issues like this needing a broader focus, especially so that we can perhaps get some changes made to our guidelines and/or policies on these matters.


== Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC ==
:::], regarding , I appreciated the comment. Do you mind explaining why you removed it? I take it that you are reevaluating this matter? ] (]) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Everyone has cooled down and agreed to stop with the ]. ] (]/]) 16:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


I was going to let this go as there has been no recent (within the past two days) hounding, until a comment by {{user|Basile Morin}} led me straight here.
:::'''Note''': Davidwr responded to me via email, and I asked him before noting this here (if he was okay with me doing so). Also note that '''Tisane has on my talk page.''' I've added it to ]. It's the fourth reply. ] (]) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Since at least January 3, I have seen a general pattern of ] on the ] board involving accusations that {{user|ArionStar}} has engaged in sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons, something I find only of minimal relevance with FPCs. I have counted <i>at least</i> three times where a user ({{user|Charlesjsharp}}) has copy-and-pasted the following message on a nomination ArionStar has started:
I have written an essay elsewhere about the counterproductive effects of deleting some good content by some banned users, where the work is unrelated to the reasons for the ban, and I can see both sides of that argument in some situations. But this individual is globally banned by the WMF Office, and from what I have seen, that is for very serious reasons. His current posts need to be brought to the attention of the Legal Department, which I will do, and people need to stop re-posting them. ] (]) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I notify other voters that the nominator has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user. (at ], ] and ])
Not only is this failing to ], it's also completely irrelevant to a process involving images. It's sort of like telling people to oppose an FAC because they haven't given good reviews. I would have left this here, until another user (Basile Morin), engaged in Wikihounding, decided to directly attack me and ArionStar instead of constructively responding to my concerns. What really damns me is , in full. I was struck with the flu, so was unable to respond, but I think I'll just bring it directly here, seeing how this isn't the first time this has happened:
{{quote|text=There is no "target" as you imagine, and each of us would like to be able to calmly evaluate new quality nominations as we are supposed to see in this section. Rather than being asphyxiated by an avalanche of weak candidates, all precipitated by the uncontrolled frenzy of a hyper-impulsive participant. Furthermore, no user is obliged to come and provoke conflicts via illegitimate puppets, and even less so if you don't want us to be interested in you. You are , EF5, according to your own words. Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months (], ], ]...), and you also use . Some of your ] are orphans and you're probably not the "author" of the . Above, you wrongly mention a "retaliatory opposing" when if that had been Charles' intention, he could have voted "oppose per JayCubby" to bring down this nomination even faster. But ] is usually an excellent reviewer, also a photographer and nominator, regular on ] and ], with ] and 303 on Misplaced Pages. I think the idea he expresses is mainly a serious fed-up feeling, to see, once again, a deluge of nominations coming from the same overexcited account. The fact is that ArionStar is here only because he was banned from Commons, unfortunately that is the sad reality. However, the goal is not to repeat here the same mistakes as those made there. Note also that, just after , ArionStar turns a deaf ear and , as if he were absolutely seeking his sanction. Obtuse insistence is bound to annoy even the calmest and most patient people. It is obvious that if you want to progress and maintain good relationships with others, you must first be able to become aware of your mistakes, and the reasons for your failures. There is no hunt against ArionStar, but no "special indulgence" either. In my opinion, Charles has mainly tried a kind of moderately subtle "]" aimed at the participant himself, who would do better to listen once and for all to the good advice, rather than ignoring it and making fun of others. This , well before he was banned. Kind regards -- Basile Morin}}


I mean, what kind of comment is this? Whatever it is, it needs to stop. "Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months" is just cherry-picking things I've done, with no actual regard to relevance. I really don't think a "talk" is going to do much here (which I've already tried), so I'm bringing it here.<span id="EF5:1737221536794:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:], I know that I thanked you via ] days ago for your post, but thanks again. The more editors who care about this matter instead of ignoring it (I don't understand how they can validly ignore it, other than being uncomfortable with matters relating to the topic of child sexual abuse), the more I appreciate Misplaced Pages. And, believe me, that appreciation is seriously low these days. One of editors very familiar with this sockmaster reminded me via email that he is ]-banned in addition to being WP:ArbCom-banned. I was going to note that here before I saw your post. ] (]) 06:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:If Charles and Basile don't commit to cutting it out, I think one way IBANs are definitely in order here. ] (]/]) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:(ec) ], this is a confusing report to try to sort out although Voorts seems to be able to follow things here. Are you the only commenter here or is some of this content from another editor who didn't leave their signature? If this entire complaint is all from you can you identify, in one sentence, which editor you are complaining about (since several are mentioned here), whether or not you have notified them of this report and what exactly your "charge" is against them? Again, give the heart of your complaint in ONE sentence although you may include diffs. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I am the only filer. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]: As I understand the report, and from looking at the diffs, Charles and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that Arion is socking/engaging in harassment/vandalism at Commons. Basile and Charles have both been around for a long time and should know better. ] (]/]) 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you, ], for the summation. I am completely ignorant of what is going on at the Commons. It's enough for me to keep up with what's happening on this Wikimedia project of which I only barely succeed at, much less know who is socking or who is blocked on other projects. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::''"and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that"'' => No, we did not vote here. -- ] (]) 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The intent was clearly to cast aspersions on the entire nomination, even if you didn't use a bolded oppose. ] (]/]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Arionstar was indeed indeffed on Commons and has socked there, creating some bad blood among some FPC regulars. For better or worse, however, we regard the projects as independent. In fact, demonstrating constructive behavior on a different project is often a good strategy to appeal a block. As Arionstar continued socking at Commons, I don't think that's the goal, but the point stands that anyone who wishes to see Arionstar sanctioned here would need to open a thread on this board with diffs showing bad behavior ''here'' (or, at minimum, bad behavior elsewhere that's ''directly'' connected to conflicts here, such as harassing a user on Commons because of a dispute here). Absent consensus otherwise, Arionstar is AFAIK in good standing on enwp.
:Doesn't mean anyone's obliged to support his nominations, of course, and I don't blame the Commons regulars from not doing so. The only problem would be an opposition here solely due to behavior there, which (as much as I'm critical of enwp's FPC criteria) is probably not a valid reason for opposition. That said, I don't see that anyone has done that? At ], Charles posted a comment and did not vote. Basile opposed, but provided clear reasons why, which didn't center on behavioral issues. Just not sure what there is to do here. Maybe this bit of advice will suffice: (a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::The isssue with it, and it is something that has been brushed off prior after I brought it up, is that these "comments" make it sound like you should oppose the nomination because of the nominator's off-wiki socking, which is ] against him, at least in my opinion. The comments are completely unnecessary, too. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm learning from my mistakes and ]. The FP guidelines here are different but I'm understanding them day after day. ] (]) 18:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ArionStar's disruptions ===
== Assistance needed with User:Robert Rowlkey ==


(First, to take into account at the origin of this report by EF5, an annoyance ''perhaps'' caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination: ].)
* {{userlinks|Robert Rowlkey}}
* {{la|Tucson Pride}}
* Apparently related commons image: ]


Now, concerning ArionStar:
Mr. Rowlkey created an article on the Tucson Pride organization. He also added two logos for the organization (one here, one at Commons).
*{{userlinks|ArionStar}}
See:
#]
#] (now ])
#] (clear attack against me)


My talk page also was "attacked" with (, , , , ).
The problem is, since then, he has refused any assistance with the article. He undid some image reformatting that I did and twice removed the {{tl|COI}} tag from the article. He has now blanked the article twice, after threatening to "take the page off line and have a friend of mine put it back up."


]. These , with left to the user (),
Now, my efforts to improve the article have been labeled "harass" and "LGBT discrimination". While no legal threat was made, he did state "This is going to become a media matter if this harrassment continues. I have kept screencaps of EVERYTHING. THe court of public opinion can be a real bitch."
before being by ArionStar as if my talk page was a battleground.


'''More worrying''', A few days ago '''the same person used sockpuppets''' to pollute my account on Commons:
As a result, I no longer feel it's beneficial if I engage with this editor; I'd like some expert help to come in and provide a different angle in explaining policies like ] and ] to this editor. The article wasn't a bad article - I mean, I didn't delete it CSD A7 or G11. It needs some attention, and I think that with some guidance, User:Robert Rowlkey could become a valuable contributor to the project. However, if we can't all make a change of course here, I don't think we'll get to that point. —''']''' (]) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
#]
: {{reply|C.Fred}} I'll admit that Robert Rowlkey's reactions to your actions might have shown that he has a bit of a ] in this regard, but I don't believe you helped the situation by failing to engage the user in anything but a string of templates. Sometimes an actual dialog is much more helpful. In this case, his first file submission indeed had no evidence of copyright, but as it is a low-res logo of an institution, it falls under ] and could easily have been marked with {{tl|logo fur}} (which I have now done). Helping rather than templating. Marking his article with a COI tag was appropriate, but when he railed at that, a simple explanation that the article was not going to be deleted, but that the tag exists solely to inform other readers and editors that other points of view might be needed, would have gone a long way to defuse the situation. <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
#].
::Diff 168 sounds like a veiled threat of retaliation ("This is going to become a media matter"). ]<sup>]</sup> 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Exhausting. There have been a lot of , on Commons. Best regards -- ] (]) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Obvious attempt to chill any discussion. While not a legal threat, it still has the effect of one. I'd be opposed to a block though as they do seem to be in need of some advice. ] (]) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::The article was brought to AfD as seen here: . The user in question made some rather harsh personal attacks, accusing editors of homophobia and harassment and again threatened to seek outside influence. The article I believe is a good enough article to stay, however I did gently remind them that personal attacks like that need to be left out. ] (]) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::The personal attacks were directed at me among others. Would an admin please take a look at the above referenced AfD discussion and instruct the subject of this thread to remove his entire reference to his opinion of my motivation? We have here a SPA slinging attacks implying and stating bigotry as a motivation towards every editor who he encounters. As I found no reliable sources outside the area where this organization exists, it is my reasonable contention we do not have notability per org. Show me some at the AfD and I'll withdraw the nom. Meantime, we have a COI, SPA editor who is committing numerous copyright violations and personal attacks. IMO, we need to make it clear to him that this is not the place for that behavior and enforce that point on the next violation. ] (]) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::And it is. Restored blatantly copyvio copy. Please act, per ]. ] (]) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::And yet another attempt at "chilling" behavior at ]..."Christopher Street West has now been contacted to observe the proceedings here as well." It's like, So? But the purpose of the edit is clear...to intimidate people from contributing. ] (]) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


I have indefinitely blocked for Robert Rowlkey, explaining to him that he needs to show he understands and is willing to abide by Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. As he also controls the source website, I also have concerns that a page containing "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner" might suddenly sport a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC) :Regarding me being “mad about my failed nom”, that is casting serious ]. I engaged because I saw what looked like uncivil behavior, '''not''' because one of my nominations failed. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now I've removed talk page access due to legal threats. ] (]) 23:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC) ::Thanks for your ''subjective'' opinion. I don't accuse you of misconduct here, just optionally indicate this trigger in context, perhaps, as a guess, and in parentheses. -- ] (]) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: I recommend striking your comment about EF5. There is no indication that this AN/I report is retaliatory. In all 3 of the FPC links above, you started it, not ArionStar, who rightfully dismissed your comments in those discussions. ArionStar's conduct at Commons is not a valid reason to oppose an FPC and your continued posting of the same thing at every FPC has been disruptive. ] (]/]) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::. Regards -- ] (]) 20:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Basile Morin, I strongly suggest striking your comment about EF5, as it's ] which is not on. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your suggestion. Last time , it later turned out that my first impression was the right one. I am fortunate to have sharp skills in psychology, nevertheless I admit that everyone is fallible, including me, and that it is possible that I am wrong on this one. I hope not to offend anyone and that this parenthetical introduction does not distort the (essential) substance. -- ] (]) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::] about ] doesn't help your case when you are ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you very much for your links. I will try to read these two "essays" in peace and quiet, as well as this "information page". I already wrote a below. All the best -- ] (]) 05:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''On reflection'''
* {{user|Neelix}}
Thank you.
I would like to apologize to user ] if I may have made one or more errors of judgment regarding them.
I do not know this user very well, and having noticed that they often change their name, use multiple accounts, and , I may have indeed become too defensive. Since they are apparently very young ], I may have made some wrong assumptions of behavior. It may also be the fatigue generated by ]. So all the better if this person (EF5) is reliable and well-intentioned. I don't blame them for anything, and I'm rather looking forward to getting back to my usual activities.


I agree with and thank him for his effort to calm things down:
I dropped a note about this to Drmies, who suggested I bring it here . There may be a history of such edits from this user, but the current issue is dozens of useless, if not puerile, redirects. ] (]) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
{{xt|"(a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp."}}
: Redirect bombing seems to be the vandalism flavor of the day. (See ].) That user ended up being identified as a sock puppet. Possible here also? <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that my approach was not the most tactful, sorry. I can nevertheless prove that the approach was 100% healthy and intended to help Misplaced Pages.
*Endorse some kind of action if this continues; per my comments at ], if I saw this kind of crap from a new account I'd block it instantly as a vandal-only account, and AGF only goes so far. Is there something in the water this week? I think this is the fourth "mass creation of pointless redirects" thread in the last few days.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 21:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::I haven't looked over his contributions but this is the fourth case of needless redirects over the past week. Something in the wire? <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I looked at the SPI--'A window cleaner me' was the account I remember seeing do this recently, so this rang a bell when I came across it this afternoon. Thanks, ] (]) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


I have absolutely no problem with ArionStar contributing constructively to the development of the encyclopedia (if that is really his intention). However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that from another user is in my humble opinion far from being as the other imagines. This is perhaps a most important point.
{{od}} Neelix has created a few useful disambig and talk pages so I've kept those, but the heaps of redirects have been mass-deleted (useful tool!) and I'll leave a warning. The speed of editing suggests automated tools. ]] 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The last thing I claim is the need for ArionStar to immediately and permanently stop using unproductive puppets. Neither elsewhere nor here. See ] '''"Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts'''.
:Turns out they're an admin. Concerning. ]] 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* {{ec}} Neelix is flagged as an admin in my UI and their contribs go from ] to boobies!!!. It may be a compromised account. I notified the Bureaucrats mailing list. ]] 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:: I sense a compromised account. I recommend an immediate block until some talk page explanation is forthcoming. <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::There was a recent incident on the ] of admin accounts that were compromised. Could this also be one? I cannot fathom a logical reason that someone would create all of those infantile redirects. ] (]) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
My account has not been hacked. I agree that the terms and phrases are puerile, but I think we should have redirects for puerile terms and phrases. Considering that there seems to be so much opposition, I will not object to the redirects being deleted and I will not attempt to create more redirects in this vein, but I do think them valid. We have a wide and diverse reader base, and people can and do use search strings consisting of slang terms, both the silly and the crass. ] (]) 22:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Drmies|Iridescent|DD2K}} who have all commented on Neelix's on this matter. ]] 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::My immediate reaction to Neelix's response? Very concerning from an admin, making redirects they admit are "puerile". ]] 22:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I do not think the redirects puerile, but rather the terms. We have entire articles about puerile subjects because they are notable. That does not mean we should delete those articles. ] (]) 22:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Consider, for example, ], a featured article on a puerile subject. ] (]) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::The title of the article is ], because that's the title of the episode. Notice that we don't have ] or ] as redirects. ] (]) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::: {{ec}} If they think links like ], ] and a dozen variations --> ] and ] with many variations --> ] and many similar things I strongly suggest they do not have the maturity and judgement we expect in out administrators. ]] 22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)‎
::::{{ec}} How on earth could you think ] and ] (and dozens of very similar variants) were valid redirects?! ]] 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}I agree entirely with ]. I can't believe you genuinely think ] or ] are either appropriate redirects, or plausible search terms. (If you ''do'' believe that, we have an issue.) That you appear not to understand the difference between a redirect and an article, judging by your response above, looks to me like a serious ] issue.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I still think steps need to be taken to ensure Neelix is in control of his account. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Neelix, if you are redirecting to appeal to the 'lowest common dominanator' of reader as claimed, by creating ] etc., why have you created redirects such as ]? ]] 22:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::: {{ec}} FFS I just found ], ], ], ], ] - it goes on and on and they have been doing this since at least September. Those redirects just seem to be hidden in the hundreds of semi-automated edits they do per day. ]] 22:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} {{ping|NeilN}} we need a crat to review, and consider possible emergency de-sysopping as an extreme, or at least some kind of CU check or something. ]] 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::]? OK, given how long this has been going on, I'd support at least a final warning, and I wouldn't oppose hauling Neelix in front of Arbcom if this continues.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


I noticed that after self-imposing a "wikibreak" they reverted another user to my own talk page, thus adding to the annoying noise. I would therefore be grateful if ArionStar would never again try to get in touch through this channel. I need peace and concentration.
:I glanced through ] deleted and noticed one, ], was a valid disambiguation page . There might be others. ] (]) 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::Apologies, I thought I'd unclicked all the disambig pages, now restored. ]] 22:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::At the very least, the bolded terms in the lead of the ] article are valid redirects and should be recreated. ] (]) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::You mean, ? I am seriously considering indefblocking you.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I did not add any of those terms; they were already on the ], which I merged into ] today. I did not invent them. ] (]) 22:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Finally, I am happy, personally, to make an effort of discretion. I have accepted the criticisms that have been addressed to me, and sincerely consider them constructive. Thank you to each and every one of you. I wish you all fruitful research and rich contributions on Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I ran a checkuser and he has been on the same IP since early September, of course - the creation of odd redirects go back that far as well. --]] 22:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


:In addition, I'll ignore any report about me coming from you here on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::So the IP changed around the same time as the strange edits? Interesting. Highly probable the account is compromised, I suggest a de-sysop and block. ]] 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::: {{ping|Versageek}} The odd redirects started in September. See below. ]] 23:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*If these were terms that were commonly searched by readers, then they would be useful (see ]). Fortunately, we have a tool for that:
**] - in the last 60 days
**] -
**] -
**] -
**] -
**] - , all on the same day
:Clearly none of these are common searches. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::Again, I do not object to the deletion of the redirects. If people are seriously concerned that my account has been compromised, there are several prominent editors who have met me in person who can confirm my identity off-Wiki. ] (]) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} I don't think any of the redirects are particularly useful. I especially don't see the value of creating pages with titles like ], ], ], ], ], and so on; you've created ''thousands'' of these redirects. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but we're also not Urban Dictionary. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::This . If this is a compromised account, it's been compromised since at least December 2014 (when such fine redirects as ] and ] were created).&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 22:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't think the account is compromised (at least not recently). This user has seemingly always had a proclivity for creating unusual redirects - this is just the first time it caught attention. --]] 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: {{ec}} I looked around to see how wide this problem is. Here are the pages I checked: <small>(] etc.)</small>, <small>(Particularly bad including ] and ] among a dozen or so others)</small> ] <small>(], ] etc)</small> <small>(], ] etc)</small> <small>(], ], ], ] etc)</small>. I am sure there are many more but I am all titty'd out. <p> At the very least {{u|Neelix}} needs to clean up their mess. I also <em>strongly</em> suggest they state whether they created any other 'puerile redirects' on other subjects or if they just stuck to breasts. ]] 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::], follow , and keep on clicking "next 5000"—there are literally tens of thousands of these. It was going on long before his RFA (anyone for ], created 2009?), but it seems nobody noticed it at the time.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you. It looks like they started with creating ] on 4 Sept 2015 and got 'hooked-on-boobs' so to speak. Going back through the years I see a lot of what I would consider nearly pointless redirect creation by this editor over years and not much else but nothing like what occured from Sept 2015 on. ]] 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I apologize for creating unusual redirects. When creating them, I did not think the community in general would be against them. Again, I am very sorry. ] (]) 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
: I agree with Jbhunley that Neelix should clean all of these up. What a mess. <b>] ]</b> 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Additional Comment''' -- I have now went back months into this editors contributions, and the thousands upon thousands of absolutely puerile and useless redirects is staggering. Literally there are thousands and thousands just in the last several months. Something needs to be done about this, but I am not sure what. The editor also has many useful edits, but this type of behavior needs to be curtailed and/or there needs to be some type of promise made. ] (]) 23:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{ec}} This seems to go back for ''years'': way back in 2010, Neelix was blocked for rapid creation of inappropriate pages: , and their response at that time seems to have been much the same as now: . At least this pattern seems to rule out compromised account. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* Thank you all. GS, thanks for pushing that button. These redirects weren't just puerile and unnecessary, they were offensive. Far be it from me to psychologize this matter, but perhaps Neelix... etc. Given that there is no evidence for a compromised account, we are left with two issues, both of which made extra pressing given that Neelix is an admin.<p>First, there's the use of tools, possibly; they were (briefly) blocked for something like that in 2010 (I haven't looked into the particulars of that). I find automated editing problematic to begin with, and I see I'm not the only one who questions what happened here and how it happened; we need to hear from Neelix what they were doing and how they were doing it. Remember that we have blocked and banned and topic-banned for automated or apparently automated edits.<p>Second, I want to know what the hell they were thinking. I supposed someone could be looking for some of the terms, but ''Constructions of the titties'' is the title of a soft-porn novel, ''Tiny Tit'' is a character in a rejected Dickens novel, and ''Hypoplastic titties'' is a ridiculous conflation of high-brow and low-brow language that no person, high-brow or low-brow, would ever be looking for (there's two Google hits, though my posting this will probably up that). In short, they are offensive and ridiculous, and this is seriously unbecoming conduct. One wonders... etc.<p>Given that we now desysop admins in a matter of hours for all kinds of stuff, I think it behooves you to start talking and giving some substance. I for one do not trust your judgment to make serious decisions, such as blocking or deleting or revdeleting, when it comes to content and behavior that can be called offensive. ] (]) 23:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist. I apologize again for my creation of these redirects. I promise not to do so again. I do not believe any of my non-redirect-related edits have been offensive. Please let me know if you would like any further comment from me. ] (]) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Well, you could ''do'' something: cock the hammer, it's time for action. Start deleting while you're still an admin. ] (]) 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
: Side question: is the justification "to help out with user searches" even theoretically valid? It seems to me that the better Misplaced Pages's search engine gets, the less time we ought to be spending anticipating wacky user searches and clogging the Misplaced Pages namespace with preemptive redirects. —] (]) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::It's difficult to explain here without finding examples, but quite often yes. If we can create a redirect for a common but unusual search term to a target article, then the redirect aids in searches, since the automated search engine might not deal well with that. That doesn't seem to be the case for any that Neelix has created, at least none that I've found. In fact, many that he created actually hinder the search engine, for example see what comes up in search results for "boobs": - many of the redirects we're talking about here come up, and they obscure potentially useful search results. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 01:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I've been of that opinion since about five years ago, too, when the search engine seemed to have got a lot better. Similarly, I habitually don't create {{tlx|R from other capitalization}}s and {{tlx|R from title without diacritics}} for the obscure articles I translate, for example, since the search engine seems to handle it fine; of course there are exceptions that are usefully "ovverriden" by a useful redirect. ] (])
*While I can't say some the actions are appropriate (and I do have my own concerns about script-assisted editing, like others), I've realized from my time in real life that topics related to "naughty bits" get people in an abnormally strange, highly reactive state of mind. Same goes for "bad words." God help the people who combine them together, for a hammer of censorship awaits thee. Combine that with the types of personalities that land on Misplaced Pages&mdash;particularly the ones that stick around&mdash;and, well, let's just say I'll be the first to admit that in real life (and/or within the aforementioned topics), I can be socially awkward. Speaking to the other editors involved on this, I think that if you can't type or read the phrase "titty fucking" in this context (for example) without feeling uncomfortable or offended, then at least consider that your judgement may be biased in contradiction to ] and you may be over-reacting. Apart from that, scrolling through looks like a lot of good faith combined with an over-active imagination with a reduced filter. For example, it's not beyond imagination that ] should need redirects from ] and ]. That's society's and (a lack of) education's doing, and it's not unreasonable to make an effort to help rectify that, particularly on things that are prone to institutionalized censorship. Just sayin'. I have a feeling that regardless, the fact he's now aware that the way he's gone about it is seen as problematic could be enough to stop it from happening again, but maybe I'm just optimistic. :P --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::"at least consider that your judgement may be biased in contradiction to ] and you may be over-reacting": your social awkwardness is showing, dude. This is nothing about censorship; the censorship guideline says we don't include information ''just because'' it's offensive to some. That's very different from "it's offensive to some and completely lacks any encyclopedic purpose whatsoever". Since you've proclaimed the user to be rectifying society's blind spots, I'm curious if you can justify the following redirects:
:::]
:::]
:::]
:::]
:::]
:::After you. ] (]) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::*Ah Ironholds, the day has come that I agree with you. Slakr, society doesn't talk about "Atrophy of the titties", and if you can type "atrophy" you should be able to type something other than "titties". Titty fucking, that's an entirely different type of discourse. ] (]) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*Great. On 20 September he was into licking breasts, in all its permutations. Does Misplaced Pages offer workman's comp for RSI? (For me.) ] (]) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::*''Some'' of this stuff is just dumb rather than offensive. I'm surprised the vocabulary never got any more creative; where's ]? But the worst examples are really bad, and the fact that they're mixed in with all the dumb stuff makes the whole thing worse. There's a sort of callousness in redirecting "tumorous boobies" to ] or "tubular titties" to ] (which is an often psychologically distressing congenital deformity) that Misplaced Pages really shouldn't be implicitly legitimizing. ] (]) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
] deleted a number of non-redirects in . ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 01:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*Yes, I did. I used nuke (as in the literal admin nuke tool.) Almost all of the articles sucked. His plant disambigs were primarily against policy, and some of them were just factually wrong. Individual articles can be restored as needed but there's no way that people should sort through 80,000 articles when 99% of them are complete bullshit. ] (]) 02:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*AFAICT we're trying to quickly delete the offensive/immature stuff, not the unnecessary but harmless stuff. We have existing processes for dealing with factual inaccuracies. It's definitely overreacting to claim unspecified policy violations as a reason for indiscriminately deleting pages that aren't offensive because their author also created offensive ones. ] (]) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::*Are you willing to fact check the sources on 80,000 articles? Because a lot of them were created with a poorly written bot that fucked up DB pulls and are factually inaccurate. If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can do it the right, policy compliant way. And we have a specific bot policy, that's not an 'unspecified policy violation'. ] (]) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::*Okay, I've finished going through the mass-deletions and I've manually restored a number of things that seem questionable. As noted before, we have processes to re-delete if necessary. — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{replyto|Slakr}} -This doesn't have anything to do with censorship. It's creating redirects with infantile wording just for shits and giggles. Taking serious subjects and creating redirects that are absolutely not real. Who the fuck is going to search ] instead of ]? Or any of the other outright silly, made up redirects the editor made. On the other hand, I don't think there is a need to block, that's punitive, imo. As for if this goes further, that is up to Neelix. If he doesn't attempt to fix the problems he himself caused, why should the community allow him to retain his bit. If he does attempt to fix his childish bullshit, thena topic ban of redirects will suffice. ] (]) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
===Suggest that this should be brought to ArbCom===
From ]: <blockquote>'''Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Repeated or consistent poor judgment. ... Administrators are expected to lead by example ... Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.'''</blockquote> Although as far as has been detailed here, Neelix's creation of inappropriate redirects has not involved the use of his admin tools, that fact that this is a '''''long'''''-term behavior involving "tens of thousands" of redirects should at least raise the question of whether Neelix is fit to be an admin, as such egregious examples of poor judgment should not be tolerated from one "expected to lead by example." I believe that this should be taken to ArbCom for consideration of desysoping. ] (]) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:Not opposed to ARBCOM necessarily but they are quite backlogged. What if Neelix pledges to clean up these thousands of redirects, and then abide by a topic ban from redirection? I mean, someone's going to have to clean these up, might as well be Neelix. I don't think that these creations necessarily point to admin abuse, just poor editing judgement. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 23:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::Having good judgment is why admins get the big bucks. ] (]) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*I agree with BMK; given that he's ''already'' been blocked for this, he's clearly not going to stop, and while this may not be admin abuse I have no confidence in his (I think from the titties-and-boobies we can safely assume this is a "him") judgement regarding potentially sensitive decisions. After looking over his page creation log, I think the total number of redirects is around 80,000, of which between 50-95%, depending on how generous you're feeling, are inappropriate (plus however many have already been deleted); this isn't just a one-off blip.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I have stopped. I have promised to stop. I would be glad to delete whatever the community wants me to delete. ] (]) 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I'd said delete every redirect you made which isn't entirely and completely vanilla. If you go too far, someone can tell you, or restore it themselves if they're an admin.{{parabr}}More importantly in my mind is some kind of explanation to the community about '''''what the <u>fuck</u> you thought you were doing.''''' It's extremely hard to conceive of a motivation for this behavior which doesn't impact seriously on your fitness to be an admin. So from my point of view, I'd say help clean up, as if you don't you're not going to have a chance in hell opf coming out of this with the bit intact; then '''''explain yourself'''''. Only a convincing explanation is going to save your bacon. If you already know that there '''''isn't''''' a convincing explanation to be had, clean up the mess and then give up the bit, under a cloud. ] (]) 23:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*{{U|Neelix}}, if you have to ask you'll never know. I have been away from this board, and I don't know if I deleted dozens or hundreds of your redirects. I can't see straight anymore. If you can't tell what's appropriate and what's not you have no business being an admin. As BMK says, what the fuck? I mean, walk up to an adult--I'm sure you know one--and tell them you just created a redirect called "Absence of tits". Now walk up to a breast cancer survivor, man or woman, and say that. You made this comment sixteen minutes ago: you have been sitting on your hands for sixteen minutes. Damn it man, ''do'' something. ] (]) 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*{{ec}} ], to be blunt, your page creation log is such a mess that if you don't clean it up yourself, I'd seriously consider getting authorisation to run a ''damnatio memoriae'' bot over your account, and wiping every page which shows you as the creator and includes the string <tt>REDIRECT</tt>; I think my "5% are valid" above was actually a fairly generous assessment. At a minimum, I think you need a topic ban on creating any redirect other than as a result of page moves, and probably resignation as an admin or at least a firm written undertaking not to use the tools; given the lack of competence you've shown here (if you have any explanation for "continuing the exact same behaviour you were blocked for" that doesn't include the phrase "lack of competence", I'd love to hear it), I would think every admin action you make from now on would be legitimately open to challenge. This may sound harsh, but it's considerably less than the anvil Arbcom will throw at you if this does go that far.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::You want him to give up the "bit" because he's obsessed with boobies? ] (]) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::An obsession with boobies is fine when it's not reflected in an editor's (much less admin's) work on Misplaced Pages. Neelix can keep his obsession, just not the tools at the same time. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 00:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I was more unsure about which "bit" was to be given up, as I only know of one that causes boobie obsession... nevermind, I was trying to lighten this up a bit. ] (]) 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::It just seems so childish and Neelix has been editing here for 9 years. These are pages a high school vandal would make, not an experienced editor. I just don't understand. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm thinking perhaps an incredibly ]y demonstration that ], but I'm not really sure. ] (]) 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*This needs to go to arbcom. It's massive abuse of an unapproved automated tool to create absurd redirects. It's absolutely godawful judgement at best, and makes it apparent he does not have the judgement needed to use the admin toolset. Also, Neelix, if you create any more of this shit before this situation is resolved, I'm blocking you for a '''severe''' violation of bot policy and emailing arbcom, crats, and anyone else I can think of to emergency desysop you as a level I until it's proven you aren't compromised, because the mere fact that you are an admin and did this suggests you are, and suggesting a level II desysop to arbcom. Frankly Neelix if there wasn't some value in you participating in this discussion I would block you for the sheer scale of violation of the bot policy immediately anyway. ] (]) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
* I agree Arbcom needs to handle this. If they were not an admin account I expect the community would be handing out an indef. The massive lack of judgement is not something we should accept in an admin. It looks like they have done very few admin actions in the last year particularly considering the <em>thousands</em> of redirects. Based on a diff I saw above it looks like they were inserting some of the more 'creative' terms into at least one article. Even after all that has been going on here they have not started cleaning up their mess by deleting these redirects . To me that shows a lack of responsibility to go with the lack of judgement. ]] 23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*Actually, I'm going to add something. {{Ping|Neelix}} - delete all these redirects en masse immediately, or I am going to block you. This would be a totally uncontroversial block if you weren't an admin and it's such a huge violation of bot policy and such horrible judgement that I'm comfortable blocking you regardless of the fact that you are a sysop. "A trip down mammary lane"?? ] (]) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:*See my comment above; cleaning this up will require a ''damnatio memoriae'' bot to wipe every page showing him as the creator, or at least every page which includes the string <tt>REDIRECT</tt>. I estimate there are roughly 80,000 problematic redirects—follow and keep hitting "next 5000" to get an idea of the scale of the problem we're dealing with here, and how long this has been going on.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 23:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::* gets you to the goods (so to speak) much faster. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::*Even most of his species disambig pages violate policy. I've contacted him off-wiki and if he doesn't start mass deleting his own shit, I'm fully intending on blocking him 30 minutes from my original comment, massdeleting everything I can, and emailing every body capable of executing an emergency desysop because this is either a compromised account or the goddamn worst judgement I have ever seen an admin use - and that's saying a lot. ] (]) 23:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*Kevin, a block would be punitive, IMO, at this juncture (though believe me, it would feel good). So would yanking his bit. I mean, I don't think he deserves it, but I'm not a fan of yanking in the first place. ] (]) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*We regularly block people for violations much smaller than this, and on top of that there's yet to be any evidence that he's not compromised. If he wasn't an admin, AIV would've blocked him as a matter of procedure for literally 1/20,000th of this. ] (]) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*And that would be yet another needless block. I suppose I'm not as triggerhappy as some people are. But Neelix isn't editing, so there's nothing that a block would achieve--if I had to psychologize, which I'm not supposed to do, I'd say he's sitting in a corner feeling pretty miserable. We have no evidence that the account is compromised, or the account would have to have been compromised months or even years ago--apparently he's being making crappy redirects for a long time.<p>What we need from Neelix is not that he sit in a corner and cry, nor that he be blocked and look at the screen--we need him to get off his fucking ass and start acting constructively. If he's as smart as he looks he comes up with something clever, or maybe he marked his calendar for especially happy and productive days, like 23 September must have been. If we can nuke by date, that sort of stuff might be helpful. But blocking an editor who is not being disruptive is purely punitive. ] (]) 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Iridescent}}, Neelix is still sitting on his hands, I suppose, and I'm developing some serious RSI. We need an engine that can pluck out all the redirects with those offensive terms and their permutations and delete them--I thought I made some progress but I've done only 120 or so, and I'm done. Neelix, I think Kevin is not joking, and neither is Iridescent. I'm the good cop here, but I'm done. You better start acting. ] (]) 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:*I've just gone through all 80,000 page creations, and he was creating nonsense like ] years ago. This isn't anything new, it's just the first time it's come to light. If ] doesn't turn red in the next 10 minutes I'm blocking him.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
*I would honestly support indeffing but we all know all kinds of shite would probably kick off so Arbcom is the 2nd best option I think, Those redirects are beyond moronic and quite honestly like everyone here I'm rather confused on why the bloody hell they were ever created in the first place... –]<sup>]</sup> 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I thought admins were admins to perform administrative functions, not to be protected from blocks for egregious behavior. ] (]) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
:::In this case, the edits were last made about 2 months ago, so any blocking would be punitive and not accomplish anything as they are not currently being created. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
::::{{ping|Nihonjoe}} Check the ''deleted'' contribs. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
:::::Okay, I didn't see those, just the ones back in September. Still, Neelix has stopped now, so blocking without a specific blocking discussion and consensus (provided he doesn't go and start up again) would not be useful. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
::::::Although I'm ready to block if his first edit on his return is anything other than (a)&nbsp;an undertaking never to create a redirect again other than as a result of a non-contentious page move, (b)&nbsp;a resignation of the sysop bit or (c)&nbsp;a bulk deletion of the vast majority of his creations, I agree that blocking without giving him a chance to explain himself won't serve any useful purpose, since one would hope even someone this clueless will have the sense not to start creating more.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 00:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Agree with this. If he can't tell why the redirects were completely loony then he should stay far away from creating them. Blocking or desysoping need further discussion. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::My only problem with that response is that if this editor was not an admin, he would have been indef'd immediately, without hesitation. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Liz}} Really? I don't think so. Suppose showed incredibly poor judgement that suddenly came under the spotlight. If they stopped, would you still indef immediately or wait for discussion? --] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, he sure as hell would have been. AIV regularly blocks for four tiny instances of vandalism. The only reason I haven't blocked him is I threw it to arbcom. ] (]) 01:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::AIV blocks for vandalism ''after'' a final warning. You may want to drop by more often. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|NeilN}}, this is high school-level vandalism. I mean all of these redirects on titties and boobs? It's something a 14 year old would do. It it was brought to AIV, I think a block would have happened right away. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I mean, I just deleted ] and ], for god's sake! <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:17, 6 November 2015 (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.
*Okay, I've been on the bus since my last comment so I missed most of what happened in the meantime. I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but I can see this coming down to a good-faith misunderstanding of the purpose of creating redirects on Neelix' part. I ''really'' don't think he did this to be disruptive, I mean, there's just no evidence of harmful intent here. He's agreed to stop, although he had agreed to stop five years ago and here we are. But does that really require desysopping? Anyone can create redirects, this isn't misuse of the tools, so desysopping won't prevent him from doing this again. Definitely we should make absolutely clear that this sort of thing is inappropriate, but if he recognizes that and cleans up his mess, then the problem is solved, really. I don't know, I just really don't like punishing users for no good reason. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 00:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
**I agree. The majority of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another. I think it's just the sheer number of boob redirects that is causing people to feel overwhelmed. Looking back through the edits a ways, those are the only ones I have a problem with. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
***Seriously,]? You think ], ] etc etc etc are "actually helpful to one degree or another"?&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
****Please. To quote, "The '''majority''' of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another." I would lump those ones you mentioned in with the boob redirects. Give me a little credit. ···] · <small ] · ] · ]!</small> 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'd have more sympathy if this wasn't the '''4th''' time we've had a problem on ANI this week about excessive redirect creation. In one week! <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::But what does that have to do with Iridescent taking my comment out of context? I haven't been creating weird redirects, so whether or not this is the 4th or 40th time has little to do with this discussion. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:04, 6 November 2015 (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)
*Should Neelix be asked not to act as a ] (as mentioned on his user page) pending further discussion? ] (]) 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I wouldn't see a need for that, unless the class in question is a particularly politically sensitive hot potato. "Online Ambassador" really doesn't mean much more in most cases than explaining markup and handing out attaboys, and "not understanding ]" isn't really relevant to whether he can explain how to complete a {{tl|pd-old}} template.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 00:56, 6 November 2015 (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)
::*Thanks for clarifying that. Suggestion withdrawn. ] (]) 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. ] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*It saddens me to say that I agree with the proposal in that this issue needs to be presented to arbcom. Neelix has volunteered a lot of time, and I mean '''A LOT''' of time towards the project and making positive contributions to it. However, this is a serious violation. Judging just by the amount of responses that this very ANI has generated, it's clear that the community's trust in Neelix's ability to hold administrator rights has been called into question, and by a significant number of other editors (including myself, to be quite honest). Administrators are supposed to be leading examples of Misplaced Pages policy and trusted by the community to protect Misplaced Pages and enforce its policies when doing so is needed. I completely understand that mistakes happen; nobody is perfect and we cannot expect perfection. However, given Neelix's tenure on Misplaced Pages, the fact that he holds admin rights, and the fact that this isn't his first time being blocked for this very thing - one thing is very clear: '''Neelix is aware of this policy, and he knows better'''. Admins should know and understand the ], and there is absolutely no excuse for violating it (especially to the extent that it was violated, and given the insane number of unnecessary redirects that this violation resulted in). The first time, it's a mistake; the second or subsequent time, it's a potential problem.
: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're a great contributor here (minus the, uhh, I'll call them "setbacks") and you've volunteered so much of your time to Misplaced Pages; I don't question your overall loyalty towards the project and I want you to know that. That being said, I think that you should save the community the time required for filing an ArbCom case, as well as ArbCom's time with everything involved with closing it, and voluntarily resign your administrator flag "under a cloud". At this point, I'm very certain that this issue will be escalated and presented to ArbCom if you don't - and you will almost certainly have the flag removed by them. As serious as this violation of policy and trust is, and how frustrated as many other editors may be over this, I hope that you view this as a learning opportunity and walk away from all of this with a positive mind and with no hard feelings. Whatever outcome results from this, I wish you the best of luck. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:06, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Comment''' As a non-admin editor previously blocked for 24 hours for "incivility" and threatened with an indef block for such incivility, I certainly find it interesting that creation of 80,000 malicious redirects is apparently not grounds for a block of any length. That aside, the thing I find most troubling about this is the really vile misogyny. How can Misplaced Pages attract talented female editors in greater numbers when such crude behaviour is occurring? Behaviour that amounts to sexual harassment, in my view. I am not in favour of censorship. Swearing? Fine by me. Political and religious criticism. Great. This garbage is just not acceptable though. Run-and-rape game redirects. Redirects implicity mocking cancer sufferers "tits" or lack of. This is sickening. I would really like to hear from the editor involved. I read his userpage and he seems like a decent individual. Why did you do this? Do you understand that you did wrong? Even more disturbing is the fact that some editors have justified and excused this damaging and time-wasting behaviour. ] (]) 03:52, 6 November 2015 (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)
::] - He is not currently being considered for a block because ]. He has stopped the behavior, meaning that a block would not serve its proper use. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 08:00, 6 November 2015 (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)
*Having slept on this, I remain convinced that the matter needs to be raised with ARBCOM. ]] 10:24, 6 November 2015 (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.
===Adminbot===
*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'''.
''Putting this in a separate section to avoid getting mixed in with the user-conduct issues''<br>
**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:
Assessing 80,000 redirects, the majority of which are problematic, would wreck ]. What are people's thoughts on either (a)&nbsp;authorising a ''damnatio memoriae'' adminbot to nuke every redirect created by Neelix, or (b)&nbsp;having a bot generate a list of all his redirects and dividing them up into manageable chunks for admins to go through and winnow out the nonsense?&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 00:07, 6 November 2015 (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.
*Damnatio memoriae is the only reasonable option. 80,000 redirects is too much work to put on the active admins when most of it is complete shit. ] (]) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (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 article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
**On 10 January, {{ping|Religião, Política e Futebol}} made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
**Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
**On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
**On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
**Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
**On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
**Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
*In regards to '''the mention of Baena's suicide''', this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
**{{ping|DiaMali}} did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
**Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
**The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when {{ping|Ibeaa}} removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
**On 7 January, IP {{u|2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196}} adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
**The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
**The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
**{{ping|Sundayclose}} reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
**Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
**Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|50.71.82.63}} fixed. Diff:
**Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information ''five times each'', no edit reasons in sight.
***Zander: (above 1), , , ,
***Ibeaa: , , , ,
**I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
**On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
**Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
**Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is {{tq|accurate and properly sourced}}. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the ] article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
**Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
**Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. ].
***I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
**After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
**Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem {{tq|vital enough}} to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:


*] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*Maybe a few of the bot regulars can help. {{ping|Anomie|Magioladitis|MBisanz|The Earwig|Slakr}} Can one of you whip up something to make a list of all of these that's easier to go through than the contributions list? ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
** Here is a list of redirects created by and only edited by user Neelix: ]. <small>Note: if there are further comments for me, please ping.</small> ]] 13:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
***Thank you. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Bot yes, but erase from history, no.''' Due to the sheer number, a mass-revert is the most feasible option (other than "do nothing"). However, a list of what was removed and what it pointed to should be kept so people who care to do so can ''manually'' go through the list and re-create any good ones. The list should also mark if the redirect was created while the editor was blocked or not, and a request that if the latter are restored, the restoring editor put "originally created by ] at " in the edit summary. No objections if those created in violation of a block or ban are left off the list entirely. I highly recommend that the list be marked {{tl|noindex}}. ]/<small><small>(])/(])</small></small> 00:18, 6 November 2015 (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)
* Note that the majority of the redirects are not so problematic. (Though I agree that the swaths involving boobies and titties have got to go.) The namespace is chock-full of needless redirects, and while Neelix has certainly been overzealous (if not monomaniacal) about creating them, most of them are not causing any particular or immediate harm. What would make sense is to find a way of automatically culling ''all'' unnecessary redirects, regardless of who created them. The algorithm is simple: if a given redirect meets both of these criteria, it can safely be deleted:
::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 is not linked to
:# entering its name into Misplaced Pages's search engine yields the linked-to page among the first N hits.
: (Choose N to taste, maybe 3 or 5.) —] (]) 00:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, it's not that simple; there are some redirects, such as paintings which have been exhibited under more than one title, or people who have changed their name, where even if there's currently no incoming traffic to the redirect, there's a reasonable presumption that at some point someone might want to link to it.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Pinging some RfD regulars to comment on the criteria here: {{ping|BDD|Steel1943|SimonTrew|Tavix|Rubbish computer|Lenticel}}. I would add to this any that are redirects from moves, as these are often kept due to the possibility of off-wiki incoming links. RfD can certainly handle questionable cases; we do mass nominations quite frequently. Based on what I've seen from Neelix' history, there really aren't that many questionable cases. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 00:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::This might be a little hard to program, but I would support a mass deletion of redirects under a certain page-view threshold. Something like 1 view/day or something that is normally within a certain the range of 'implausibility' on RFD. I've nominated several of Neelix's redirects for deletion at RFD and looking at his talk page, several others have done the same. --] <sup>(])</sup> 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm queasy with the idea that adminsitrators make unilateral deletion decisions (in their programming/parameterization of a bot). In the case of "normal" bot edits it can be hard enough to undo the work of a general-purpose bot that is run with "bad" parameters (I have had run-ins on more than one occasion with one particular ex-admin who has done this),but with deletion, it is almost impossible even to know that the bot has run.
::::The problem is not the "80,000 redirects" but how many target each article. For many years I have expressed my view that too many (similar) redirects to an article hinder rather than help a search, but like wasps at a picnic it is difficult to argue that any in particular is a problem.
::::The RfD criteria here do not really cover mass listings well; presumably the more redirects there are to a given article, the greater the likelihood that each will get fewer hits. However, a bot should run under the same Delete/Keep criteria (in ]) as mere human non-admin editors such as myself. If the gap is in the criteria, we should change the criteria:; what we shouldn't do is ignore it by unilaterally have redirects disappear without trace ''en masse'' in some Stalinistic purge. (I am not invoking ] here but trying to make a reasonable analogy, because the problem with ''deletion'' in particular is that it leaves little trace and is much harder to undo than a mere edit.)
::::The criterion suggested above for "if it is not linked to" would need to be qualified (my general qualification in RfD discussions is "not linked to from article space", but "user-facing space" might be better), because by listing it etc. it will cause it to be linked to. However, I am rather concerned that redirects disappear on the unanimous decision of one administrator (the bot's keeper) with no discussion or forewarning. Or is it suggested we have a kinda "Proposed mass deletion" page that one could add to one's watchlist? How often would the bot run? If that page were updated too frequently, I doubt many would check it. ] (]) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*Not sure what's going on here since this whole thread is a mess, but it seems like the point of it is that ] has been determined to create problematic redirects. My only input on this that may be helpful is that sometime in the lady couple of months, I nominated several redirects created by Neelix that targeted ] or ]. Hopefully that helps with something here as I'm not sure if deleting every redirect wholesale is wise since some might be useful; they would have to be cherry picked. However, with that being said, I '''weakly support some sort of sanctions on Neelix creating redirects''', suggesting that they use ] for every single redirect from here on out. ] (]) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Some of the redirects are valid, though I suspect the search engine would find the articles easily enough anyway. For example, ] has , all created by Neelix: ornamented frog, ornamented frogs ... ornate narrowmouthed frog, ornate narrow mouthed frog, ornate narrow-mouthed frog.... One or two of those would ordinarily be worth keeping, if anyone's ready to put in the effort of panning for them. ] (]) 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


== Death threats by 2.98.176.93 ==
'''Hatnotes too?''' {{u|Neelix}} has added some questionable hatnotes as well: ] (]) 00:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
{{atop
| status = BLOCKED


| result = Blocked and TPA revoked, nothing further. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh man, what a mess we have here. Immediate deletion was probably not a good idea, either. This could have been approached more methodically—you broke a ], for example. I need to make a phone call, but I'll respond to ]'s question right after. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
}}
:Yup, definitely a mess. We basically just need a bot to make a list so they can be gone through much more methodically instead of a nuke-from-orbit approach. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
{{userlinks|2.98.176.93}} Left a death threat {{diff||1270338492|1270334632|here - diff}}<br />
::], mass deletion hasn't happened. There are still tens of thousands of inane redirects. 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Liz}} Yes, ] (at least it was started). ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Y'all better hide this under the rug ''fast'' before it reaches the press! ] (]) 01:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC) *Note: 30 day block by {{user|Bbb23}} ] (]) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*Death threat left after block. Talk page access? ] (]) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, ], hiding embarrassing incidents is always worse than the incident itself. Throughout history, it always backfires. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:*TPA removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' May I suggest a semi-automated approach in dealing with the 80k redirects? We could have bots identify entries with certain keywords like "boobies" and such and then subject to RfD the less questionable redirects. I agree that the sheer number of redirects may overwhelm the Rfd but a systematic batch nomination would slowly reduce them to manageable size--] <sup>(])</sup> 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::And who is to decide what is more or less questionable? That is what RfD is ''for''. ] are lovely birds. ] (]) 01:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I'll leave the keywords to the bot users' discretion and the editors here who are more familiar with the case. I am a fan of ]s. --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC) :::I think {{tl|Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. ] (]) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''I'm currently running a database query''' that grabs all of this user's redirects and runs them through a profanity filter. I'll throw the TSV up somewhere when I'm done so people can use it as a baseline for a bot. ] (]) 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::If you use ], you can select 'block with talk page access revoked' and it'll select the proper template. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*I suggest running a bot to delete ''all'' redirects - if they are genuinely useful (only a very tiny minority!), they will be re-created in due course by good faith editors. ]] 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I can't believe that. I use Twinkle all day long and I never saw that option. There are always things to learn here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly, ], thank you very much. I have the hardest time locating the right template regarding admin work. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here ... the "really odd redirects" occurred after an IP address change? And IP2601 as a non-registered editor just "happened" to see them and then canvassed a bunch of admins to make absolutely sure Neelix got shat upon? Am I missing something? Neelix was organized and persnickety (to a fault) in his pre-September edits. He suddenly changed IP addresses, and went off the deep end.
:::::No problem! I've had to dig to find the right template a few times myself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Templates are a convenience but not at all necessary. It does not take long to type "Your talk page access has been revoked. See ] for your options." ] (]) 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Spoofing known IP addresses is not impossible (far from it, it appears), nor are "Joe Jobs" impossible (not even unlikely in a case like this). But we are united that we must do something drastic here? AFAICT, the more likely version is that a real registered editor (likely an admin who has seen the IP address for Neelix?) parallel edited the account - knowing most editors do not look at all their own contributions in the list. That person bides their time, then shows up as a mystery IP whistle-blower (this is far from unheard-of on Misplaced Pages) and wants Neelix gone as fast as possible.
{{abot}}

''If so'', then the person who should be sanctioned is likely whoever is the faux whistle-blower. I decline to believe IP2601 is a random passer-by here. ] (]) 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:Respectfully, what have you been smoking? It has been reiterated several times by now that the edits do ''not'' just go as far back as September, but in fact, "inane" redirects are a long-term behavior, and even one that Neelix was previously blocked for. ] (]) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:*And I'm sorry, Collect, but that's a groundless hypothesis--it makes my skin crawl and underscores why I've tried to leave this site so many times--no good deed goes unpunished here. In spare time I frequently drop in at the recent changes page--do many administrators do that, to get a fuller understanding of how much crap flows by, a lot of which is caught quickly, but much of which seems to get through the sieve? It's a way to kill time while I'm simultaneously writing or corresponding, and I happened upon these redirects because, as Drmies noted at his talk page, I seem to have a good nose for this sort of stuff. Drmies, Bbb23, Kafka Liz and SandyGeorgia know who I am. Is it now necessary for us to summon character references on my behalf? For those who remain curious, my IP changes with exasperating frequency because I have a poor rural connection, and often unplug in hopes of temporarily improving it. But I welcome any and all IP checks if it helps establish my credibility. ] (]) 14:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::] That is a disgusting and unacceptable attack on the IP editor and a complete breach of ]. ] (]) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Actually it is a matter of when AGF is good and when it does have problems. In general, Misplaced Pages has always seemed to look askance at IPs who edit from multiple IP addresses and decline to actually register as an editor with a username. (see AE discussions about allowing anonymous complaints being brought) And if you are in a really sparsely populated area, then I will gladly accept "bad connections." Warm regards. ] (]) 22:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::You are talking garbage. Thank goodness this matter was brought up. Frankly I wouldn't care what motivated a reporter (or "faux whistleblower" as you term them, in violation of ]) anyway. No requirement exists for registration. Misplaced Pages is anonymous, even with usernames. I don't know who you are, even though you have a username. Neelix can easily create other accounts if he wanted. He would be just as anonymous as the IP. ] (]) 22:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::And let's remember about ] in the course of this incident, in ''both'' directions. ] (]) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'll repeat what I've said before, either here or at Drmies' page: I choose to edit as an IP for reasons that are innocuous to others, but are valid to me. As long as I'm working here constructively, it is nobody's business. We all get that, I thought. I write professionally, am the subject of a bio here, and prefer to keep some distance between my edits here and my real life. In the course of reverting vandalism as a registered account, I was made uncomfortable by threats from vandals. And I forgot to add this: I like presenting a moving target that vandals can't easily get a handle on--they're less inclined to waste their time coming after an IP. If I were destructive, the Dr, Bbb23 or other admins who ''don't'' know me would shut me down. If a user wants to go after me for filing a legitimate report here, that's their prerogative, and I wish them luck. In the end, unless I've done something disruptive to Misplaced Pages, it will be seen as harassment. It is, in fact, as threatening to me as the bile of vandals. ] (]) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
===Proposed ban on creation of redirects===
*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
Since it seems a straight out block is off of the table I propose that {{u|Neelix}} be indefinitely community banned from creating <em>any</em> redirects not resulting from page moves.
] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
*'''Support''' as proposer. Neelix has shown poor judgement in the mass creation of redirects. Since this discussion has opened he has not started to clean up his mess, even when asked to. Not even the a minimal response to {{u| iridescent}}'s {{tq|"If ] doesn't turn red in the next 10 minutes..."}} when it was pointed out by {{u|Drmies}} that {{tq|"Neelix is still sitting on his hands..."}} earlier in this thread. This shows not only a lack of judgement but an incredible lack of responsibility as well. ]] 00:50, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Support''' as co-proposer a few threads above. Neelix should not create redirects, that's a no-brainer. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*Well, you know, sure, but here's the thing. If we don't block him now--and I don't think we have a reason to, besides to use as a stick when we have no carrots--then someone will block him the moment he makes the next idiotic redirect. (Where we draw that line, that's up to the admin who happens to be looking at it.) So a topic ban is already happening, practically speaking. I think the bigger question is whether we trust this editor with the admin bit, considering this piss-poor judgment. Imagine if ''The Atlantic'' got wind of ''this'' story, which actually has some meat on its bones. ] (]) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Personally, I am amazed he was not blocked right out of the gate. I would dearly like to see bit-blind blocking in this kind of situation. By giving a formal topic ban it gives some cover to the poor blocking admin and the shit-storm that would pop up if they blocked on their own initiative. I would also love to see de-sysops for 'loss of the communities confidence' but do not expect that either. So... <p> Yes... I can see the headlines now <em>"Misplaced Pages administrator with juvenile fixation on boobies spams Misplaced Pages with offensive tit links"</em> or some such. This is a 'customer facing' issue unlike the the 'house facing' problem currently 'in the news'. I bet it would be easy for the press to tie them together though. Bah. ]] 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', paradoxically, since I've already said (and meant) that if he doesn't give this undertaking I'm blocking him the moment he returns to editing. I dislike formal, written, topic bans, unless they're absolutely necessary; generally, to put a stop to a long-running, festering dispute. They serve as marks of Cain, and encourage assorted busybodies to pay undue attention to the editor in question's contributions in the hope of spotting a technical violation of the rules. As a thought experiment, imagine Neelix gives up the redirects and devotes his time to writing, and at some point creates an article on a book which was published under different names in North America and Britain/Ireland (this is ] ]), and creates a redirect from the alternative title. Under the letter of a formal topic ban, this would result in his instant blocking; if you don't think there are admins who ''would'' block in these circumstances, I suggest you have a read through some Arbcom enforcement logs.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 01:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::Well, I think what you're saying is that you intend to enforce this proposed topic ban, informally, regardless of the outcome here and without formally recording it in whatever log these things get recorded in. If that is what leads to the situation being resolved, then I'm all for it, and I'm sure you're right about block-happy admins. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}} If he spent time doing other things for a year or so lifting the ban would not be a major issue. If he wants to create a redirect for an article he actually creates before then he can ask for someone to create it. It would show his judgement has improved. We work with the tools we have and here all we really have are bans and blocks once we have lost trust in an editor's judgement and editorial responsibility. ]] 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support with modification'''. The silliness needs to stop instantly, but I take Iridescent's point. Perhaps a limitation of two redirects per day, both of which must be undisputably sensible.... ] (]) 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support with modification'''. I like Newyorkbrad's suggestion of a limit on the number of redirects per day. The number can be up for negotiation. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support.''' I'm frankly more alarmed at the redirects like ], a type of which he has also created (scroll about 1/3 of the way down), than I am at boobies, though boobies was more than bad enough to start with. While Neelix has also created much more normal redirects (plenty of tree frogs!), the interspersing of utterly inappropriate ones is enough for me to support removing him from the area entirely. ] (]) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
**Thanks Fluffernutter; I removed all those--there is very little justification for those redirects, and the plethora of it actually suggested we were dealing with an attempt to establish it as acceptable terminology. (Kind of running out of AGF too here. ] (]) 02:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - Sorry, I'm a hard ass, and there's absolutely '''''no reason''''' that this editor should ever create a redirect for the rest of his Misplaced Pages editing life. If he needs one created, let him ask someone '''''responsible''''' to create it. (I'm also fully in agreement with Liz, the only reason he hasn't been blocked is that he's an admin. I don't say that as a slam against the various admins in this discussion, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, but there is absolutely no doubt that a rank-and-file editor would have been blocked by now.) ] (]) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. This is punishment, and punishment is what makes people indignant, detached and ultimately unhappy. If they're the sort to abide, all they'll have learnt is obedience. The encyclopaedia is in no immediate danger from Neelix, who has - for the time being - stopped creating redirects. If, in a month's time or so, we've made no progress with reaching an understanding, I might ''then'' support a topic ban. <br> And could we stop with the theatrics? Yes, iridescent and Kevin, you possess a block button. Well done. ] (]) 02:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::*Yes, I have a block button, which I greatly prefer to not use, and have actively argued against the blocks of multiple people in recent weeks. ] (]) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::* I've not commented on what you've done in the recent weeks; I've remarked on your comments here, in this thread, where you and iridescent are repeating that you will block on repeat violation, as if that's gonna make them understand what they're doing is wrong. You might succeed in intimidating them, but that is no "success" at all. ] (]) 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I feel that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on this following events a few days ago. Sorry, --] (]: ]) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and I think we also need a desysop. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – absolutely not. This is far too premature. We still have a lot to figure out. A shamefully large number of the deletions made just now were incorrect. — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Dude, are you willing to sort through 80k articles and manually check sources on each one? It makes infinitely more sense to delete them all and selectiely restore ones that turn out to be useful or necessary. You restored more than one species article that were clearly done using a poorly written bot that fucked up a DB pull and are factually inaccurate. If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can write a working bot, get it approved through BAG, and write actually accurate articles instead of leaving this many piles of crap around the wiki relying on people to check the sources of 80,000 articles. ] (]) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::*I fear "delete first, ask questions later" is exactly the wrong approach to take here. You're going to need to provide stronger evidence that he was using a bot. ], and this does not look like one at all. — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion. I have only restored one species article so far ('']'', mentioned by us earlier). There were a few species synonyms that I restored too, which I individually verified, but not articles, and I can't imagine an argument against them. — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support with modification - ban the use of any sort of automation to create redirects'''. I think that the ban should instead be that Neelix "be indefinitely community-banned from creating redirects ''using any form of automation''". This will give him the freedom to learn from this incident and continue to contribute without being completely shut out of this area, but it naturally sets limits on how many he can make by requiring him to do this ''completely manually''. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Oshwah}} Neelix claims above not to be using any automation {{tq|"I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist."}} so this does not address the problem. ]] 03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::For the record, I LOL'd. Hard. Also, I see your point and I'm inclined to agree with you, ]. This is obviously a ridiculous statement, but you point out something important: we don't have the full ability to ''prove'' for 100% sure that an edit was done using automation outside the edit summary and tags. This may present a problem. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::ArbCOm has gotten around the problem in the past by simply defining automated or semi-automated edits as anything that looks like automated or semi-automated edits, so if Neelix says he's not using automation and is just a fast typist -- well,that's bad luck for him. He'll have to learn how to type slower. (But not, in my opinion, to make redirects, which he should be indefinitely blocked from doing.) ] (]) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::] - I've seen those ArbCom cases that closed defining "automation" as well. I do remember the definition being worded quite openly (probably to allow "leeway" as far as proof goes). I simply followed up to acknowledge ]'s response and give it some merit. I still stand behind my vote, and that he should only be banned from using automation to create any redirects. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. From my outlook, what matters is fixing the harm done. I've looked at the logs and there seem to be 75,000+ redirects. I've never seen anything like it. Many aren't "dodgy" as to wording, but redirect off more or less useless permutations which, if done for the whole article space, could add something more than fifty million pages to the website. Even given that en.WP's search engine has always been weak (tip: a somewhat mangled Google search will most often bring up the sought-after article), redirects of this kind weren't the way to deal with it, indeed. My take is, I don't know how much Neelix could lend to the scripted/automated cleanup and human checking this mess is going to need. Ask him to agree not to do anything like this again. If he does agree and then does it again, it would show some worrisome lack of understanding or grip on himself and a swift de-sysop (along with perhaps a short block, if the timing called for it) would very likely follow. By the way, I don't think that if a non-admin with a long, otherwise helpful contrib history had done somthing like this in good faith as say, a time killer (however cluelessly), that it would have ended with a lasting block. Also, it doesn't look to me as though he used automation. ] (]) 03:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Redirects are useful, and, yes, some redirects need to be puerile to connect to all the subjects we cover. I can see how one can get carried away putting synonym with synonym. ] ] 04:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support idea''' but oppose a hard ban. Allow him a few redirects a day without discussion plus an unlimited number provided each one has been proposed on the target article's talk page for at least 3 days and has had zero opposition. Also, a temporary ban on creating redirects until the current mess is cleaned up (i.e. formalize what is probably already a ''de-facto'' super-double-secret-probation situation) followed by a longer (3-6 months seems reasonable) ban on creating redirects in topic areas where, based on the cleanup results, his redirects in that topic area are more harmful than helpful. The net result is he will be able to create as many redirects as he wants in most topic areas as long as he proposes them on the affected articles' talk pages and nobody objects for 3 days. He will also be able to create a few redirects without discussion every day, as long as they are outside the problematic topic areas. ]/<small><small>(])/(])</small></small> 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I agree with bd2412. --] (]) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. This is the most ludicrous case of boneheadedness we've seen in quite some time. It goes beyond disruptive -- it's positively destructive and is a form of trolling. ] (]) 06:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' total ban from creating ''any'' redirects at all. ]] 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Alakzi. I trust this will stop because of understanding. "Other than page moves" will not work because someone eager to create redirects could simply move an article from one name to the next, several times. --] (]) 13:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' - I'm all for giving people second chances but half of what he's created you'd expect from trolls & vandals ... Not from an admin with a 10 year history, AGF only goes so far and considering he's created thousands I think AGF went out the window a long time ago!, I don't believe the limit would work as it would mean someone would no doubt have to monitor him and to be totally honest we all have better things to do than to monitor someone 247 & 365 days of the year, The topic ban would hopefully stop it all. –]<sup>]</sup> 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BD2412 and Alakzi. Neelix evidently got carried away, but he is now aware that the community does not want these redirects, and has promised not to create them anymore. (Of course, if the behavior continues in the future despite this discussion, then a ban would be worth considering.) —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* <s>Support - Bare minimum sanction, assuming that a desyssop will also follow.</s> ] (]) 16:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:: After spinning through the first 10,000+ redirects, it seems that the massive, overwhelming majority are good faith redirects. Not sure what to do about the small minority of bad ones, but anyone thinking this is a case of 80,000 vandalistic redirects needs to do a little basic research. Here's again... ] (]) 06:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' People do dumb things once in a while. I would support an option like this if the problem is repeated. --] (]) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|I am One of Many}} You do realize this has been going on for years, right? And he was blocked for it in 2010? ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Level-headed in person. Never imagined I'd ever see this level of immaturity, but then I didn't know about the . I can't help but also notice that Neelix's response to these revelations sounds to five years ago. Sorry, Neelix. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Jbhunley.- ] ] 19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support a limit of three redirects per day, with an option for the community to implement a full topic ban if behaviour continues'''. I've now briefly looked at about 20,000 of Neelix's redirect contributions. The same frantic level of creation of not-particularly-useful redirects has been going back to 2010 ''at least'' and quite probably much further. We all make mistakes, but a mistake that goes on for 5 years and over tens of thousands of edits is ] territory. Neelix makes useful contributions but adding redirects like (just to pick randomly) ], ], ], ], ], and ] isn't making Misplaced Pages better for anyone. A limit of three per day gives him the latitude to create content-focussed redirects without going over the top. I broadly concur with ]'s judgment. —] (]) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* {{ec}} times 3 '''Oppose'''. I think everyone has their rampages and their... um... fetishes once in a while. But the community should give Neelix a final chance before they TBAN him. He'd already stopped his behavior when this was proposed. (Also, if you are going to ban him from creating redirects, also ban him from moving pages, since that itself automatically creates redirects. Also, ban him from merging pages, because that also forces the creation of redirects. Just sayin'...) ] (]) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:* Except this particular "rampage" has been going on since at least 2010 -- that's not occasional behavior, that's an integral part of their overall editing pattern. ] (]) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. It was mentioned above, but since it may have gotten lost in the size of the discussion, , and at that time they said that "While that continues to be my belief, I understand how strongly some editors feel that profanity-related redirects not be created, and the redirects I create in the future will not be profanity-related." Yet they continued doing it for the past five years, regardless. I honestly do not feel they are capable of controlling their behavior in this respect. --] (]) 07:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - At the very least. The 2010 block, promise and subsequent five year redirect rampage call for firm action. ]]] 08:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' -- there is no lack of other editors to create useful/plausible redirects, and Neelix losing the right to do so will not impede the development of the encyclopedia. In addition, Neelix should be de-sysopped and only allowed to re-apply for the admin bit after a period of showing constructive contributions as a normal editor. -- ] (]) 13:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::Seriously, you consider requesting him to undo the mess his did "draconian" (I'm referring to )? Initially, that was the very first basic things that people were asking of Neelix: to start undoing the mess. Why should other people be taxed with the pretty monumental job? Neelix showed he can do the monumental job by doing it in the first place, now he can undo it too. ] (]) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Draconian, and more to the point, futile, as I can't see that it's likely he would ever finish, and we have no power to force him to do so, and once de-sysopped, Neelix would in any case be unable to help. Neelix should be (a) de-sysopped, and (b) topic-banned from making redirects, but seems on balance to be a useful contributor otherwise. We can do the cleanup with automated tools. The aim of these processes should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to punish. -- ] (]) 14:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Let's get this straight: what's emerging over time (though "nobody noticed" for years) is that the bogus redirect-making goes back to before 2010, when he was blocked for it; then, more recently, he "retired" because some of his other misbehaviors (including misuse of admin tools and arbitrary ] blocking of users) surfaced to the press, but in reality, what he did was move to Commons and continue the bogus redirect-making there; then he came back to Misplaced Pages, and here we are. '''He should be indefinitely blocked'''. If he doesn't want to be blocked, the ''least'' he could do is undo the mess he created: it's not about punishing, it's about not burdening editors who weren't the ones causing any of this. ] (]) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::My comments are purely pragmatic, and should not be taken as a defence of Neelix's actions; in fact, they're quite the reverse. If you think Neelix can do it, you might be right. But cleaning up and de-sysopping are mutually exclusive, and so far Neelix seems to have deleted a couple of hundred redirects, then stopped. I would prefer the de-sysopping option at the moment, with due process, in the knowledge that an immediate block will follow if any further problematic edits occur. -- ] (]) 14:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I'm sorry, but at RfD I've just seen too many bad redirects by Neelix, and this crop is just especially egregious. I'm not opposed to a very small daily limit, like one or two. No doubt ''some'' of his redirects have been helpful, but to borrow RfA language, I simply don't think they're a net positive. --] (]) 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' complete ban on redirects. This is the very minimum that needs to be done. The 2010 block proves that he knew it was wrong, though he must have known it before that with all the experience he had. This wasn't an innocent mistake. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' ] provided a valid reason for his creation of redirects. Whether or not we agree or disagree with his reasoning (I happen to agree), it was clearly done in GF. Further, he's already volunteered to stop making redirects so imposing a block simply becomes punitive. This reads like a kneecapping effort. ] (]) 22:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I don't have too much trouble assuming good faith for Neelix—I guess they did genuinely believe what they were doing was going to benefit the encyclopedia. However, it is important to remember that good faith contributions can still run contrary to the goals of producing an encyclopedia, and good faith actions can still be sanctioned if they are disruptive. The evidence shows that Neelix has exhibited a surprising lapse in judgement extending back several years with regards to creating redirects; as a result, a restriction against creating redirects makes sense. If there are a few incidental redirects that need to be created in the course of positive article development, the restriction should not count against legitimate requests at ]. ] (]) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've never had a problem with Neelix: in fact, I enjoyed interacted with him here and at the Commons as a committed, passionate Canadian Wikipedian. I wasn't aware of this massive redirect history, at all. I must say some of the comments above appear positively Victorian -- OMG, another redirect about ''breasts!'' -- and I don't particularly care if Neelix's bizarrely excessive approach to redirect creation involves body parts at times, or not. But bizarre it is. As I've stated below, I have a ''real'' problem with targeting Neelix's articles for deletion if they are notable. But on the redirect side of things, after the 2010 block, he knew what he was doing -- or he should have. ] (]) 08:23, 9 November 2015 (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)
===Proposed additional topic-ban===
::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)
I have to admit that in my nine-plus years on Misplaced Pages, I don't believe I've ever seen a case like this. Neelix is an editor and administrator whose dedication to Misplaced Pages are obviously substantial. I don't believe I've come across him before, at least not memorably, and so I just took a look at his userpage. He's an experienced editor with a well-developed wiki-philosophy, significant roles in 10 FAs and lots of other articles, an ambassadorship, and does a lot of solid editing.
::: It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. ] (]) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Naniwoofg ==
And yet, we have all the bizarre redirect-creation and other odd behavior that has been described in this thread. The mind, as the saying goes, boggles.


{{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)
What to do in terms of Neelix's editing rights and particularly his adminship is certainly a valid topic for discussion. But if he does continue editing, in addition to any restriction on redirect-creation, I think we need to seriously consider a topic-ban on the topic of (or perhaps better still, a clear voluntary promise to stay away from the topic of) human breasts or perhaps more generally parts of the human body. ] (]) 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:I think you're right, because this is a sensitive topic for some users, however I don't think Neelix shows a particular obsession with this topic, only that he happens to have created more of these redirects recently and that is what got him noticed. If you go back past about August, the mass-creation of redirects follows other topic lines just as much. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I defer to your analysis of the longer-term trend. ] (]) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


:Can we get a follow-up on this? @] has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. ] (] • ]) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' from reporting IP: The concern has been raised about how this would play in the press, which suggests a degree of worldliness here. Is anyone aware of how ''not'' blocking and de-sysopping will look to the outside? In this case, the editor's future is not your primary concern; it's Misplaced Pages and, alas, its image. ] (]) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''Support''' sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on ] article, which . Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the ] ''before the 2019 renovation''. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
**Sure, but we can't go and block people to make us look better. This kind of creation of redirects, that's not going to happen again. I'm concerned with the lack of judgment, and I like my admins with more than a little judgment. ] (]) 02:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
***It's not about making us look better. It's standard action in a functional workplace environment--a lot of this was offensive in several ways. That a long term error in administrative oversight was made ought to be discussed, but I'm seeing a double standard that's unacceptable--that's becoming the story. To openly admit here, as some have done, that a non-administrative account would be blocked without hesitation seals it. Let the press hang--equivocating looks bad to ''me''. Dr, you know I've been editing here for a decade. At this point I'm far more concerned with the deliberation as an avoidance of what's necessary, than with the offending account's actions. ] (]) 02:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
****"that a non-administrative account would be blocked without hesitation" Still not buying it (well, yes, if you came to a trigger-happy admin initially). --] <sup>]</sup> 02:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
**** I'm not cutting him any slack for being an admin (quite the opposite, in a way), and I don't agree with some of the editors in this discussion. One factor, as NYB pointed out, is that Neelix has been here for quite some time and has done much without getting into too much trouble. It's the "vested contributor" thing, if you will. And we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, at least in the long run, if we block an editor for past behavior that I think will not be repeated--if only because if it will, he'll be blocked on the spot. I dig where you're coming from, believe me, and I can't thank you enough for getting this ball rolling (this thread is a mighty return on your investment!), but I firmly believe in the "not punitive" part of our blocking policy. Thanks again, ] (]) 02:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
****Misplaced Pages isn't a workplace. I never like that comparison; the baseline motivations and incentives are completely different, making the "what would the HR Department do?" question largely irrelevant. That said, ''if'' there were a topic ban, this is the topic to focus on. I don't really think it's useful to do things like redirect ] to ], and the page views agree with me, but it's harmless enough. Concentrate any attempted remedies on the actual problem, which is the creation of links that are immature and often somewhere between insensitive and offensive. Since he's not actively doing that at the moment, I don't see a need for an Official Memo about it before we hear from Neelix about how he plans to fix the problem. ] (]) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Propose requiring ] to be required to use ] for any future redirect creations''' at the minimum. ] (]) 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' topic ban on 'breasts' - I don't think that this is necessary. Sure, this incident involves human breasts in that many redirects were created regarding them, but does Neelix have any other issues, sanctions, warnings, blocks, or a long-term history of issues specifically regarding "''breasts or breast-related pages''"? I think that the answer is '''no''' - he doesn't. This issue appears to stem from a long-term history of issues with inappropriate redirects, not "breast-related" articles. I honestly think that he ran into this topic area, saw that there were many different ways to refer to human breasts, and (for some crazy reason - haha) thought that creating a gigantuous and crazy amount of redirects would.... I don't know, help? :-) Smiling faces aside, I think that this topic ban is a little too much. Am I wrong, or am I crazy and missed something? Please let me know. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::''Note: I clarified my vote statement to remove some ambiguity and clear up any possible confusion.'' ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 05:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*:Yes, you're wrong. Glad I could help you there!
*:Neelix has been creating these pages for ''years''. If you don't think it's part of an obvious history of violations you should probably read the bit of the thread discussing his block for this kind of en-masse, inappropriate page creation . The actual trivialising, disturbing and frankly creepy redirects started in at least 2013 and have continued ever since. Smiling faces asides, if you don't see a problem with his behaviour meriting keeping him away from this area, you haven't read his creation log or the discussion on this page. ] (]) 04:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::] - I was referring to the topic ban on 'breasts', not the topic ban on creating redirects, which I above, as well as a comment regarding this incident's escalation to ArbCom. I think that the ambiguity of this vote is what (might have?) caused your (possible) confusion. Also, yes... I did read the discussion and do my due research. Ya jerk (just kidding) ;-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::So you're opposing a topic ban on breasts because the user hasn't got a history of misbehaving, even though they've been consistently doing this since at least 2013-14 and evidently at no point went "wait, maybe this is an incredibly weird, disturbing and pointless way to be spending my spare time"? Because that sounds like a history to me. You know, multiple years of consistently doing something. ] (]) 04:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Wait, now I'm confused. Are you talking about his history with creating redirects? Or his history of making contributions to "breast-related" articles or topics? I just want to verify that we're on the same page so that we can discuss using accurate responses. You obviously disagree with my vote; I am absolutely 100% open to talk about it - if anything, I'll realize that I'm wrong, apologize for being a complete idiot, change my vote, be shamed as a belligerent fool by the community, and forced to go into hiding in order to stop the pain. I just want to make sure that our statements don't confuse one another, and that I reach the right decision that is beneficial to the project. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::The latter. ] (]) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''<s>Oppose</s> <u>Support</u>''' 'breasts' topic ban <u>and anything to do with human anatomy, physiology, clothing or nudity broadly construed.</u> I think this was the result of <s>general cluelessness </s>rather a disruptive fetish. ]] 03:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Changed to support after the 'Commons' material was brought up below. Whether they are problematic or not, to me it speaks to the intent and mindset that resulted in the problem here. ]] 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::Are you trying to be amusing, ]? Surely. ] (]) 04:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|AusLondonder}}<s> Based on the <em>massive</em> number of weird redirects he has been doing for years and, as far as I know, no other strangeness cf editing articles, surrounding 'breasts'. I do not think this topic ban on 'breasts' accomplishes anything meaningful. I doubt he will do anything with 'breasts' or their synonyms/slang again. What I worry about is the <em>next</em> puerile topic he goes redirect happy on.</s> <p> There are certain, call them mindsets, that do not understand the connotation - or the social implication - of words or how their use might affect others. People with this 'mindset' tend to only look at the denotation, the dictionary definition, of words. My AGF in this situation is that something like that is in play ie "general cluelessness". Any other explanation also makes this sanction useless as well because <em>in that case he should be indeffed</em>. I hope the general prohibition on redirects I proposed above addresses the matter going forward. ]] 04:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Struck material per my support !vote. ]] 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
**Well, I've deleted over 300 of them (manually...) tonight, and there's hundreds more, starting on 4 September with ]. As far as I can tell. ] (]) 04:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I cleaned up stuff from September 2015, where the breast-related redirects were. -- ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I deleted around 2200 (mostly breast-related) redirects that he added in September. -- ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Reviewed both sets of deletions; looks good. — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::* I have restored ] and ], at least. Like it or not, the (vulgar) common name for mammary intercourse ''is'' "tittyfuck", and each of these variations is a plural/first person singular form. ] ] 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Those are potentially good restores, because Google searching on those terms is not a productive way to access ''information on the topic'', because there's so many porn sites. However, when I type "titty" in the Misplaced Pages search box I am offered "titty fucking" as the second selection, so I think there's not much point. -- ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::* Would you be opposed to listing those at ]? Perhaps as a test case. But also if we're saying that some vulgar redirects are ok based on the results of Google searches, then aren't we really saying that ''all'' of these redirects are ok? I utterly, strongly disagree with that rationale, but that does seem to be the point that Neelix was trying to make way up above. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::* Look, when you're talking about ], which is a sex act, of course you're going to find vulgar terms synonymous with it. I completely agree, however, with the premise given above that "titty" and "booby" are unlikely to be used in combination with medical conditions. There is a principled distinction to be made, and frankly I think that the existence of real-world examples (i.e. Google hits) can be instructive. I would add that searching for terms in the search box is only one of many ways people navigate Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to think about how people might reach this (frankly unintuitively) named article through such searches, but these redirects do represent terms in use in the real world. ] ] 15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::* It's not practical to assess each of 80,000 redirects on a case by case basis. I deleted (with a few exceptions for potentially viable search terms) the breast-related ones because they are offensive, and combined slang terminology with medical terminology in a way that real people are unlikely to use as a search term. For example, ] is not an occupation. The page got three views on the day it was created, and none since. -- ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 15:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::** I do agree with the deletion of redirects combining vulgar terms with medical terms. ] ] 16:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Topic ban should extend to''': Prostitution, sex work, and anything related to human sexuality, broadly construed. See this article on Neelix's agenda: . He's far from the admirable editor you make him out to be. ] (]) 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*:Indeed. I remember that WPO exposé. Biographies too. The debate here shouldn't be over desysop, it should be over whether to block the account entirely. Amazing that these redirects flew under the radar for so long. How do we prevent others from potentially doing the same in the future? We should have had edit filters catching stuff of this magnitude. ] (]) 11:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::'''Question''' Do admin. edits go through the edit filters? <small>(my impression is that it depends on the individual filter)</small>— <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 11:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I see, ] explains it: ''The autopatrolled (formerly autoreviewer) user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers.'' Over 4,000 accounts, including all admins, have this right. Perhaps certain filters should be in place that ''all'' edits, including those of admins, must pass. The type that would only be triggered under extreme conditions. ] (]) 12:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. - ] ] 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. A topic ban from anything even vaguely sex-related seems appropriate at the moment. -- ] (]) 14:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - per above. Seems to be an unhealthy fixation of the type that embarrasses the whole project. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' When an argument for blocking or banning someone is "if we don't, how will this play in the media?" I will always register Oppose. ] (]) 22:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' this part of the proposed topic ban, as there's similarity to the edits that led to the 2010 block; the other redirects were similar to those created just before the successful ]. ] (]) 01:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


==Okvishal and years of self promotion ==
===Arbitration Committee motion===
{{atop|1=Okvishal indef'd. Article has been deleted (at its most recent title attempt, ]) and salt applied to all three variations that have been used. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Notifying here that I have posted a ] proposing that ] be desysoped. ] <small>]</small> 04:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Ping|Okvishal}} has been an editor for 14 years. They have 138 edits but only 11 of them are non-deleted ones and those non deleted ones are also for self promotion or promotion of their feature film. A look at their talkpage shows the sheer scale of self promotional editing they have done over the course of their wikicareer. Right after joining they created an autobiography which was speedy deleted, they recreated the article under a different title and it was as well. Over the course of 14 years, they have recreated their article and those of related topics several times all leading to waste of community time through AfDs as ,,, and most recently at . It is clear that they are not (and never were) here to build an encyclopaedia. Consider blocking them and ]ing ],],] etc. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for the heads-up :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I think that's very appropriate. ] (]) 06:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC) :I've blocked them as it's clear they're only here to promote their non-notable self. ] ] 22:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) ==
===Dismissing a block as punitive is faulty logic===
A block in this case is in no way punitive. If an individual lacks the common sense to understand that behavior such as this is inappropriate on so many levels, then we have an obvious ] case here. The lists of terms he has used is frankly disturbing and raises questions about not just competence, but mental health. I am not a doctor, but if a naked man knocked on my door on Halloween and said, "Trick or Treat for UNICEF", I don't think anyone would expect a degree as a prerequisite for saying "That fella is not right." C'mon, here, ladies and gentlemen. There isn't anything to debate. Let the arbs take his mop, and then show him the door and lock it quick. I don't care to be associated with this kind of behavior. I am having a problem understanding why this is complicated. ] (]) 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
:I have to agree that CIR is seriously in question here, as is the future of his behavior, and on that grounds I would support a block. ] (]) 09:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br>


The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the ] pages and even had raised the issue here , with no visible actions following.
::For what its worth, I think a block is justified here, if only because of the childish, sexist, and offensive nature of many of the redirects. Neelix can explain themselves in an unblock request if necessary. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC).


Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg
:::Thank you for opening this sub-heading, it's one of the points I wished to make above. A few hours after bringing this to Drmies's attention and starting this report, I checked out in exasperation that this rationale didn't seem abundantly clear to more administrators. It really surprised me to return from dinner last night and learn that the account belonged to an administrator, to read of the scale of the redirect history, and observe a hesitancy in blocking. One may debate the editor's intent or frame of mind, but doing so is unnecessary--he may be no more, nor less, tightly wound than are you or I. But what can be determined quickly is the content and quality of these edits, the ramifications of those edits to the project, and the editor's competence. ] (]) 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
::::I too support a block. For both the editor's own good and the best interests of the encyclopedia. The redirects and hatnotes are bad enough, but the issues with this editor extend beyond just those. ] (]) 13:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Per . ] (]) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've been lambasted on this board before for commenting on a user's state of mental health. Please be careful. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 15:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I wanted to note somewhere in this discussion that today Neelix is actively deleting some old redirects and that's a positive sign. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Well, he did about 150 or so, and they weren't even the most egregious ones. When you've made 80,000, cleaning up 150 is not much of a contribution. I really expect to see Neelix making ''''''no edits of any kind which aren't connected with cleaning up his mess'''''. ] (]) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. At the moment, I can't see any evidence that Neelix is in the process of, or likely to, clean up 80,000 redirects, nor will he be able to do so with the admin bit removed, which I now see as inevitable. This is a job for the community, with the aid or automated tools. I would imagine that almost all of the 80,000 redirects can be deleted, with a little bit of database filtering to find the perhaps (at a guess) 1,000 or so that might be useful, which can then be reviewed by hand. (By the way, note that ''some'' vulgar terms are valid for redirects, for example common vulgar names for sex acts. But these are few and far between.) -- ] (]) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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


The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].
I propose a community admonishment for Neelix with respect to the creation of unneeded, and in some cases offensive, redirects. Neelix should only create redirects that strictly comply with ], and not to create any unless their validity is absolutely certain. On the understanding that if this is not followed, a community ban from all redirect creation, other than those from page moves, may entail.
I feel this is the appropriate response, given that he has responded "" and "" and "" Meaning that any block, bans or desysops would likely be punitive rather than preventative.


I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
*'''Support''' as proposer. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">]&nbsp;]</b> 16:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -] &#124; ] 16:19, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Support''' As editor is now patently aware of community disapproval and that any further creation of these types of redirects would be considered disruptive. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 16:36, 6 November 2015 (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 ].
*'''Support''', as as a complete resolution of this matter. ] ] 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via ''de facto'' statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often ], which I cannot even comment on. ] (]) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Other issues such as admin tool misuse and possible POV pushing have come to light as well. See the discussion at . ]] 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
*'''Support''', with bd2412. Some of Neelix's redirects have started coming in at ]. I'd appreciate the community working together at RFD to come to a consensus on which redirects are helpful and which aren't. Yes, it might "flood" RFD for a time (less so if they are bundled by subject/theme), but this is the correct way to go about it. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::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).
*'''Support''' Noting that the other "solutions" may be more draconian than useful. ] (]) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:::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)
*'''Oppose''' procedurally. Enough issues have come to light at this point that a full ArbCom case seems necessary, maybe even likely. I also believe that formal admonishment is somewhat silly. Community admonishment is evident in the 165,000-ish bytes already devoted to this here and at ArbCom (not counting other talk pages), we don't really need to put a stamp on it. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (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)
::'''Comment''': The point of it is a formal warning not to repeat this behavior. It's exactly the same reason that ArbCom admonishes editors. If there was a repeat, and this community admonishment was passed, then a ban from redirect creation would feel a lot more justified. A ban from redirect creation would feel less justified, as no community warning, to my knowledge, has been given. See above for arguments against a community ban at this time. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">]&nbsp;]</b> 00:00, 7 November 2015 (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)
*'''Oppose''' on first principles. Community admonishment is a useless think to propose or vote on. It doesn't actually enact or change any permissions or rights, and doesn't remove any tools, block, protect, or impose any bans or restrictions on the user's editing. The admonishment is implicit in the participation in the thread, and such a vote is meaningless. It's readily apparent there is a problem, there ] confirming that. Proposals for action should cause a substantive change in something. Formal admonishment is worse than useless. --]] 17:44, 6 November 2015 (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)
*'''Support''' if ban proposals do not achieve consensus and are not enacted. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 18:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - a topic ban will formalise his promise not to do it again, and this whole ANI thread is admonishment enough. Neelix is a good editor, we don't want to drive him away by putting him in the stocks and pelting him with rotten fruit. He's done wrong, we'll introduce a topic ban (hopefully temporarily), we can all move on. ]] 18:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Good idea. There is way too much formalizing going on in Misplaced Pages. A formal topic ban is appropriate if admonishment fails, which I doubt that it will. --] (]) 19:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for whatever this is worth (not much). ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The truth is if this was a non-admin, they would have been indef'd a long time ago. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{re|Lugnuts}} I just want to make sure I'm understanding your point. The proposal at hand is that the only procedure here be an admonishment, and nothing further -- no action, no topic/redirect ban, no de-sysop, no block, etc. Is that non-action what you are supporting? (I'm asking because the wording of your support is a bit confusing and implies sanctions are warranted.) ] (]) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Ivanvector. I reject the "if they were an admin/a non-admin ..." arguments as classist and plain illogical. ] (]) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. He's been abusing his admin privileges for years (), agreed not to mass-create more vulgar redirects after being blocked for it in 2010, and yet has created '''80,000''' more of them, in addition to boneheaded articles like ] complete with revealing nude female image. This actually however is just the tip of the iceberg on the Neelix case, which very few people seem to have taken the time to look into. He needs an immediate de-sysop and probably an indef. We can't have an out-of-control admin with this level of puerile fixation on sex and vulgarity and this inability to control his impulses despite promises to do so. ] (]) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is a clear case of abuse of the bit and policy as well as his agreement to stop this nonsense when he was blocked for it in 2010. I agree a desysop is in order because he has abused his position as an admin as well as the community's trust, but I do not agree he should be indeffed. Sanctions and/or a topic ban after being desysopped with monitoring for 6 months or so is more appropriate than an indef block/ban. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Not enough, we are beyond hand slapping. - ] ] 21:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because of the wording that this would be the only sanction. As I said, an admonishment is necessary, but not sifficient. ] (]) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC) <s>Support, but only because ArbCom seems to need more proof that the community has lost trust in Neelix. The adminishment is necessary, but '''''not sufficient'''''.</s> ] (]) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. He was blocked for this exact same thing in the past and said the exact same things you're citing above. Yes, it was five years ago, but I think that there are clear ] problems. Given the sheer tenacity and scale of this behavior, and given that he ignored a previous block (despite promising to stop), I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that he will resume this behavior the moment he thinks he can get away with it (or the moment whatever urge makes him doing it hits him again.) And given how long it took to notice these among his huge number of other automated-looking edits, I'm not at all confident that the community would spot it within a reasonable timeframe if he resumed this behavior a few months from now. A block in extreme circumstances like these would be preventive, not punitive, and I feel it's silly to suggest that just "he promised to stop (again) and this time he really means it" could change that. --] (]) 07:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' ]. The creepy behaviour surrounding her is enough for a block. ] (]) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*:That article is the electronic equivalent of a collage of celebrity pictures taped to a bedroom wall. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This should give a formal statement of what is expected. Based on Neelix's response we can assume that it will be listened too. Blocks are not needed but this will express what the community wants to say on the matter. ] (]) 04:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The redirects are strange and inappropriate. Neelix should have known better, but maybe he didn't. He has apologized and isn't doing it anymore, so that should be sufficient for us. He is admonished and we all move on. There is no need for punishment and we shouldn't be trying to run him off the project. ] (]) 06:59, 9 November 2015 (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)
===Begin the cleanup===
::{{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)
] has created ]. I modified it so they are numbered (50,072 of them!) to make it easy to reference them if needed. So, whenever cleanup starts, this is the place to begin. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:10, 7 November 2015 (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.
:Goodness... the page hardly loads. Well, I'll get started. Also, do we want to create other batches for his dab creations and other potentially problematic things? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
::Yeah, the page takes a while to load, even on a blazing fast fiber optic connection. I wonder if it might be good to add section breaks every 2500 entries or something? As for the others, we can get to those as we get to them. This list ought to make it easier to use ] to get rid of any useless ones. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::As a corollary it is ''in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals'' to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @] - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @] has seriously failed to ] by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Reformatted Anomie's list on Labs; should hopefully be easier to load if people are having trouble: ]. More to come. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 02:13, 7 November 2015 (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)
:::: Can we split this into subpages? Much easier to work with. ] ] 02:19, 7 November 2015 (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)
:::::Yes, working on that. Trying to do it smartly rather than just a bunch of arbitrary cuts. By the way, this one seems to be chronological. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 02:24, 7 November 2015 (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)
::::::{{ping|BD2412}} See ] for now. Still more to come. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 03:00, 7 November 2015 (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)
:::::::Obviously as a non-admin, there's nothing much I can do to help, except to say "thank you" for undertaking this huge task. ] (]) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (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)
:::::::I just can't figure out where this guy is coming from. I mean ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]?!? ] (]) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Beyond My Ken}}, YES, there's a lot you can do as a non-admin! Find redirects of questionable utility and nominate them at ]. We haven't gotten consensus here to delete all of them (and I doubt that'd happen, there's too many useful ones), so it's going to have to be done by ]. We need to start somewhere so find a topic/theme, and get nominating!! --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: Things like the above aside, the vast majority of the redirects created by this editor are perfectly fine. ] ] 03:12, 7 November 2015 (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.
::::::::: There are '''80,000''' of them, bd2412. Have you gone through all 80,000? ] (]) 03:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::* {{ping|Softlavender}} I have gone through several thousand of them. Some of them are unconventional, but well within policies for the creation of redirects. For example, ] and ] are nicknames referenced in the subject's article. Many of them are useful, such as ], ], and ] (we routinely redirect full names to shorter common names). Some seem to be overly specific, such as ], ], ], and ] pointing to specific articles when they are arguably potentially ambiguous, but none of these should be red links. Mass deletion will do more harm than good. ] ] 04:07, 7 November 2015 (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 disagree that there's no consensus to delete first and ask questions later, and RfD would be overloaded if we dealt with this situation one by one. You can't deal with 80,000 candidates like it was a couple of hundred. ] (]) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (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)
::::::::::We better get started then. RFD can handle it, trust me. I'm a regular there. --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:27, 7 November 2015 (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.
:::::::::::I'll consider helping out by nominating at RfD, but first you've got to tell me: '''''How may redirects RfD handled <u>in total</u> in the past 12 months'''''. ] (]) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*: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)
::::::::::::] It's all about bundling smartly and remember that discussions with no objections default to delete. That way you can nominate a lot at the same time, and the only real burden is on the closing admin. --] <sup>(])</sup> 14:46, 7 November 2015 (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)
Okay, I've updated ] a bit. Includes redirect targets now; that was the main thing. Also shows redirects that have been deleted since Anomie built the list (not updated live). —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 04:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*:I can confirm that - yes - multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or coprimise is a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Rissoan view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*I looked at a few thousand now, and I don't have a problem with many of them. I think we've done a pretty decent job taking care of the offensive ones (see my block log and Iridescent's). I have no doubt many of these will start showing up at RfD and that's fine; prompted by RfD discussions I've deleted a couple of obviously unlikely permutations. One of the problems with RfD is the paperwork: there's a neat little button now that goes directly to "delete", but closing them is another matter. I noticed that {{U|Ivanvector}} closed one for me--thanks, I just don't know how to do that easily. So, {{U|Beyond My Ken}}, the sheer volume as well as the...eh...not-so-easiness of closing those discussions probably means this is going to take some time. ] (]) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Thus the point of my asking how many redirects RfD normally handles. There's also the question of "double handling" (stagehands '''''hate''''' doublehandling). If an admin examines the list and sees an obvious problem redirect, they can simply delete it. On the other hand, if I see one, not only do I have to nominate it at RfD, where it's subject to discussion, but then an admin has to delete it anyway - so the entire process takes at least twice as long and potentially more. I don't see that as a particularly efficient way of dealing with the problem, rather than having an organized task force of admins attack the list. ] (]) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::*@], ], I'm still not convinced leaving it to RFD is the way to go. Just cleaning up would create more discussions at RFA than it usually handles in a week; plus, even if only 1% of the 50,000 are deemed potentially problematic, that will mean Neelix will wake one morning to find 500 RFD notifications on his talkpage.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 09:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*{{U|Iridescent}}, I didn't mean to suggest that RfD is the ''best'' way to go. BMK, you can always ask an admin to delete some list of them, I suppose. But it would be so much easier if in a list like I could select what I wanted deleted and then delete them with one click and one edit summary. ] (]) 14:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*Only one discussion per group like that should be necessary. RfD is no stranger to mass nominations. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 10:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*@], I don't see any redirects in this list of 94 that would require deleting. Overkill? Probably, but "redirects are cheap" has long been a meme here. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*Well, nothing's free: server space costs electrons costs rainforest and low-lying countries. And why all the permutations with words following "Domotor-Kolompar"? If you type in those two words the rest (of the article title) follows automatically; are we making those terms for cutting and pasting purposes? If you paste in "Domotor-Kolompar criminal family" and there were no redirect, you'd go to the "regular text" search which tells you that the topic is already covered in Domotor-Kolompar criminal organization. I mean, there's something of a purpose to those redirects, but it's oh so minimal, and "Domotor-Kolompar criminal family" had only seven visits in the last 90 days. Surely that's not what the dinosaurs died for. ] (]) 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::*RFD will work if you do it right: You just have to be smart about ]. Divide his redirects first into "good" vs. "bad" (yeah, I know that's subjective, but there are some that are obviously not good). Then, take the "bad" ones and categorize them by a certain theme. I'm going to begin to do so once this dies down, and I encourage others to do the same. The key is that discussions on RFD with no other discussion default to "delete," so no one else ''has'' to chime in on something unless there's an objection. That way, the only burden lies with the deleting admin (which would be the case anyway). --] <sup>(])</sup> 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*RFD can do mass nominations very efficiently, ] dealing with 357 redirects simultaneously, the mechanism would be similar for a few thousand. The rationale for either keeping or deleting many of these redirects is likely to be the same, so it shouldn't be a big deal to nominate all of them at the same time. We could even copy the list to a subpage of the RfD log and refer to it, rather than listing each and every redirect on the log page, or a bot could do it, or I don't know. It's do-able, is my point. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|The Earwig}}, would it be possible to take the raw output and produce a list of targets with numbers of redirects for each? The ones that have most redirects might be the ones with the most superfluous (or worse) redirects, it might be easier to produce RfD bundles by target, and the sheer size of the list might be a little more manageable - I'm guessing about a tenth or less of the full size. ] (]) 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|NebY}} Good idea. I'll have that in a bit. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|NebY}} See ]. 399 redirects to ]. Oh dear. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>'']''</sup> 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|The Earwig}} neat! and yes, oh dear. Some of those 399 actually make finding information on the internet harder. The first 10 Google results for contain seven "dictionary" entries largely scraped from these redirects, two anagram sites and at #5 one link to a web page that actually is about multiple-glazing. Now I'm wondering if others of his stranger creations are drowning out sparse genuine search results far from Misplaced Pages, and whether those online dictionaries will self-repair if the redirects are deleted. ] (]) 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*A simpler solution to {{U|Beyond My Ken|BMK}}'s point could be to create ] and list only the titles from the 50k odd ones you think are delete worthy and alert {{U|Drmies}} who can check and perform a batch-delete on that page using Twinkle. I think the maximum pages that can be handled like this is 500 or something (though I doubt any individual is going to look through more than that at a time), but I could be mistaken on that. &mdash;]''']''' 17:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Yes, ], if you'll tell me how to do a "batch delete". It'd be great for my edit count. ] (]) 18:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
{{out}} My thanks to everyone for these suggestions, which I will probably follow at some point. Right now, to be absolutely honest, I am so utterly dispirited by the way ArbCom is handling this issue, one of the most obvious loss-of-trust desysopping issues I've seen in my 10 years here, that all I want to do is forget that I ever heard of Neelix. That will pass, although my faith in ArbCom may not return for a long time, and when it does I'll see where we stand and join in, but at the moment I'm more inclined to want to nuke every edit Neelix ever made -- not just the redirects -- and indef him for life then I am to engage in a lot of hard slogging grunt-work to undo his damage. ] (]) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::I just scanned several thousand of his redirects (I read very fast). I prod the very worst, but there are blocks of redirects with slight variations in capitalization, dashes etc that are totally useless because search finds them anyway. I noticed he has a box on his user page that says he is in the top 250 Misplaced Pages editors - maybe that is the motivation? Shooting for the top 10? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I'm pretty sure you're right, as Neelix went to the press to highlight his edit count and his userpage is festooned with edit count userboxes. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::This is nuts. We are encouraged to flag these junk redirects, so I flag some, and ] and ] decline them speedy deletes as to old to delete. So off to discuss them. Maybe the Admins don't really want help here. ] (]) 12:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I haven't been following this thread so I have no idea what it is about and am not going to go through it. When I see a redirects that were created in 2007-2008 tagged for speedy deletion under R3, I decline them as they don't fall under the Recent provision of ]. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 13:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


== Hamzajanah posting vanity hoaxes and general NOTHERE behaviour ==
=== Double standard and partiality shown towards new editors and IP editors and administrators are given unfair advantage? ===
{{atop|1=] user is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
If some kid comes and create an auto-biography three times, they are indefinitely blocked. If a new user creates useless pages, they are indefinitely blocked. The IP who started this and i very much agree with him. An editor with six month old account gets friends, so an administrator will get so many supporters. Some people are coming with a conclusion "'''Nelix has stopped'''", "'''he has been warned'''" and kind words "Desysop is punitive".
*{{userlinks|Hamzajanah}}


I'm really struggling with this new user. They have posted ] and ] both autobiographies and both contained multiple hoaxes. They are continually using Misplaced Pages as a ] and violating ] too. They are constantly boasting about their wealth, see for example. They claim to be a close associate of ], ] and ]. They are also . I have not seen one constructive edit and their is one of the worst I've seen and also warns us of "persistent sockpuppetry". This is bordering on ] already. Their ability to navigate Misplaced Pages suggests that they might have had previous accounts and might even be an LTA vandal but I can't think who it is. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Warning is for new users''', not for administrators. ''Neelix won't do it again'', is not a valid excuse. Are you people aware that this is about '''thousands''' of redirects, not even a few hundred? This is rarest of rare case. Even New users and vandals haven't done anything as such in my knowledge. If some phrase exist in internet, then Neelix is innocent. In the arbcom case, users are coming with ridiculous arguments to save Neelix. Seriously, Misplaced Pages is not urbandictionary.com. Misplaced Pages is not a fetish site. Wikipedis is not a random collection of nonsense stuff.
:That filter is notoriously poor for detecting socks. I believe it was created with one sockmaster in mind, and yet based on how it functions (I'm not good at filters), comes up with many (mostly?) false positives.--] (]) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::It doesn't really matter whether they have been socking or not. They are posting hoax content to Misplaced Pages, so should be blocked anyway. ] (]) 17:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In one of their screeds they’ve embedded some serious BLP violations. For the sum of everything, with no hope of useful contributions, blocked. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that that's a fair outcome. Thanks all. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Edward Myer ==
I suggest 1-Desysop, 2-one year block and 3-indefinite topic ban related to Biology, Female fashion, Zoology topics. Administrator was aware what he was doing. Even he doesn't repeat it still action must be taken. If his first block in 2010 was due to similar behaviour, then most likely he will do it again after five years, and at that time 80% of the users aware of this will become inactive or retire.] (]) 04:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*Yes we are aware of the number, very well aware as a matter of fact. Blocks still aren't punitive, and the suggestion that Neelix has somehow been protected by friends--well, I think was the first admin to respond to the IP's hunch, and I think it's clear that I am neither a friend nor a protector, even though I do not support a block (yet). Thank you, ] (]) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::"Blocks aren't punitive" and yet dozens of IPs and new accounts get blocked every day for less than 5 instances of vandalism, without necessarily any definitive proof that they'll do it again; Neelix did it before being blocked, did it again after being blocked, retired after being "outed" on the press, but really continued doing it on Commons, then after a while came back here, and did it again. ''What exactly are we still waiting for''? ] (]) 14:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::*We block vandals quickly, sometimes very quickly, based on the presumption that they did something wrong and will keep on doing it until they're made to stop. Many vandals might have stopped anyway the moment computer class in their high school is over, or the moment their mom yanks them away from the keyboard. But we block them because we think that a. they're likely to commit more of it, b. what they do needs to be cleaned up again, taking up resources, and c. what they're adding is wrong and an embarrassment. Those things don't apply here--hence, in my opinion a block would be punitive. If Neelix creates one more offensive/inappropriate redirect they'll be blocked, but they haven't done that. ] (]) 14:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Funny, I thought ''all three'' applied, based on what I summarized just above. a) Neelix is likely to commit more of it because the past times he said he'd stop, he hasn't; b) thus it'll need to be cleaned up again and with Neelix, contrary to the random school vandal, we're talking ''thousands'' of things; c) please tell me you aren't saying that the redirects that have often been mentioned here aren't, in your view, "wrong and embarassing". Please. ] (]) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Funny? I'll see if I have witty response after the RSI has worn off. You know, there are lots of ways in which one can help Misplaced Pages. Removing (manually) hundreds of offensive redirects is one of the. Barking up the wrong tree on a noticeboard, not so much. ] (]) 19:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


*{{userlinks|Edward Myer}}
===Not just here, at Commons too===
{{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)
At first I was trying to think of an innocuous reason for all these strange redirects - was this just a way of grinding his edit count higher, like a score in a video game? Under his real name, David Mark Purdy (it's at the top of his user page), Neelix has given interviews to the press as one of Misplaced Pages's "top 50 editors" and highlighted his edit count of 130,000 (were a majority of those silly and puerile redirects?) Was he just wanting attention and accolades and thought a high edit count would do that?


*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.
After I saw this thread, I also went to look at his Commons contribs. Apparently back in January, Neelix after he came to the attention of offline forums, including ], for the creepy shrinelike nature of ] and related articles. While he was inactive here, he went to Commons. His contribs there had been previously limited and routine, but in January he began to create hundreds, if not thousands, of odd categories involving nudity. The , just keep scrolling. His first one in this vein was "Blue pasties", soon progressing to "Topless women wearing panties", "Topless women with nipple piercings", "Topless women with closed eyes and opened mouth", "Nude women drinking", "Nude women with pianos", "Men touching nude women's breasts"....it just goes on and on and on continuing up to this month.
: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)
There's something very wrong here. Neelix made a small effort to start cleanup and seems to have abandoned the whole thing. I frankly would not be surprised if we have seen the last of him here. But I'm thinking the bit should probably be removed soonest in any case. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:14, 7 November 2015 (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. ] (]) 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. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 07:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Remind me again why we are against an indefinite block please? Because it would be punitive, was that it? Not because it would stop him from doing utter crap after he was blocked and even come to press attention for it? Do we really want the press to do a better job of vetting not even just editors, but ''administrators'', than we do? ] (]) 14:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. ] (]) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{U|Kelly}}, are they discussing this on Commons? I can't work their system; have you brought it up over there? I doubt they'd care much, and again, it may be that some of those categories are useful. But that's an awful lot of naked or imitation-naked women someone was looking at, and while a category may be useful, a thousand such categories for women (not for men) suggests we're in the cattle business--that women are such objects who can be categorized by men for their viewing pleasures, like Commons is a porn site (well, to a great extent it is) where you can grab a box of tissues and pick your fetish. I wonder if Commons gets the bad rep we do. Thanks for looking into this and, if you know how to do it and it hasn't been done, please get folks over there to take it up. Sheesh, a sexual obsession--the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to the internet. ] (]) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (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)
::{{u|Drmies}}, I've . I don't know if anything will happen, Commons is very badly staffed for admins and the ones that are active are heavily occupied with copyright violations and other "urgent" stuff. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks Kelly. ] (]) 15:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC) :My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? ] (]) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]—{{tq|I wonder if Commons gets the bad rep we do?}} I take it you've never tried typing "electric toothbrush" into the Commons search box?&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Good god. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I have to wash my eyes with soap now, {{U|Iridescent}}. But on that point there are editors who go searching for cleavage pictures of private people that are accidentally licensed as CC-by-sa on Flickr and go on to upload here and it's quite difficult to get them deleted. &mdash;]''']''' 17:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::You're so innocent, Spiff. ] (]) 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
====Neelix active again====
Neelix is currently active again on Commons, making and regarding his conduct. He doesn't seem to have returned to help clean up his mess here though. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


== Please revoke TPA from ] ==
:Wow. I've messaged them on their talk pages, both ] and ]. Let's see if they respond. -- ] (]) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
{{archive top|result={{done}}. ] 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{vandal|JEIT BRANDS}}
Talk page abuse, still spamming after block, please revoke TPA ] 18:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}


== Continual ECP-Violating Posts in WP:RUSUKR area by User_talk:Valentinianus_I ==
::It appears that Neelix is distressed by these events (see ), and I personally have no desire to chase them any further on this matter. They have emailed the Arbcom, and I think we should leave this matter to them now. I don't think there's much point in chasing Neelix. Let's work on tidying things up here. -- ] (]) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked for a week. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|_Valentinianus I}}
] is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to ] topics.


* As background, this editor was notified repeatedly by ] in August , and clarified . Melik again notified Valentinianus a month later in response to more edits that were not exempt , .
:::"It is very emotionally draining to read through the constant criticisms of me and my editing" Awwww, bless him. As emotionally draining as creating tens of thousands of useless redirects? The last refuge of the damned. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


* Valentinianus was blocked for a few weeks in October until ] unblocked them after giving benefit of the doubt. I'm only bringing this up because Rosguill, during the unblock reference notified Valentinianus that they would "like you to confirm that you've read and understand ] by identifying edits that you have made in violation of it, and how you will observe it going forward."
:::Being distressed is, I dare say, the very least one could expect in his reaction. He has every reason to be, but are we going to fall for the same "trap" as when he "retired"? ] (]) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


* ] notified Valentinianus on 1/18 that they were making inappropriate edits in violation of RUSUKR and was violating ] as well . Valentinianus replied that asking for a rename and calling for a subsequent rename vote were edit requests .
::::At least on commons, some very minor progress seems to be being made. I suggest we regard their edits on commons as being separate from the situation here. -- ] (]) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: Anome, your faith in human nature inspires me. Unfortunately (and I've been here a few years) in my experience once one of these obsessive-type admins go bad, they never become good again except temporarily. It just results in more rounds of drama and endless work before they are inevitably relieved of the tools and often banned. I'm thinking of folks like {{u|Ryulong}}, {{u|Will Beback}} and {{u|Jossi}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
What Neelix does on Commons does not fall under the jurisdiction of AN/I on en.wp. ] (]) 18:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Agreed, but it's relevant as part of his pattern of behavior. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::Exactly ] (]) 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


''After'' that reply to Isabelle Belato (so that there is no question Valentinianus is aware of the latest warning), Valentinianus made five additional edits to ]. None were remotely along the line of constructive edit requests, the problematic ones being to argue that a source is a "Ukrainian shill site" , a project complaint about the infobox , and ] about the bad faith of the other editors on the talk page .
===Proposed block===
I am at this point going to propose an '''indefinite block''' for ], despite some previous objections to that.
This is on the following grounds:
* He was for making inappropriate redirects; however, he resumed that behavior.
* He has additionally by, at least, blocking editors when he was ].
* He has come to ]'s as having furthered his own ], possibly including the aforementioned misuse of tools.
* After that event, he ostensibly , but in reality his dubious redirect-creation activity to ] and turned it into dubious categorization (are things like "topless women with snakes" desirable categories to have?).
* He came back to Misplaced Pages, to make this further large batch of unacceptable redirects, including things like (I shall remind) ], ] or ].
* Once asked to give up his admin privileges and delete his bogus redirects, he did neither thing, except for a proportionally small number of redirects; instead, he went back to Commons to do .


While in isolation, no individual edit is egregious, this editor has been warned several times about the limits of RUSUKR, and adding ], ] , and ] violations in this area to the number of ] violations, I believe an indefinite topic ban from ] topics, broadly construed, is appropriate.
This shows that misbehavior and poor judgement is a long-term and ongoing problem, and involves both admin-specific and editor-specific circumstances. Evidence shows he is not furthering Misplaced Pages's goals, and despite quite laconic "apologies", he of the issues at hand and .
] (]) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact he "retired" after press attention and then the problems surfaced again shows that he knows how to wait for the spotlight on him to go away, and then start again with troublesome behavior. This is why a block would not be "punitive", but in my opinion, the only way forward. ] (]) 18:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The ArbCom has faild because a majority of the Arbs think a full case is required. It would probably be better to take this material to ] and fill out the 'paperwork' there. Someone, sooner or later, will need to do so. I doubt there is stomach for an indef here considering the number of editors who thought an <em>"admonishment"</em> is all that is needed. ]] 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::I would be careful not to assume that simply because someone supported admonishment, it automatically means they opposed harsher measures. I think there was a bit of confusion on the matter. You can support something in case something else you'd prefer fails, that even has a name in jurisprudence (although I don't remember what the name is). As to "filling out the paperwork", if anyone wants to add anything to my above recounting of the events, I will be happy for them to do so, and then maybe it can be used for the ArbCom case. ] (]) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


* I've just blocked them for a week instead. If they're ignoring the ECR restrictions, they'll just ignore a topic ban; that's because the reason they're ignoring the ECR restrictions is either ] or the fact that they don't care, and either would apply to a topic ban as well. Perhaps they'll get the message after this block, or perhaps they won't at which point we can look at further sanctions (which, let's face it, is likely to be an indef). ] 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Neutral'''. I think Neelix will not be returning immediately. The de-sysop process will now slowly work its way through Arbcom, and will resolve itself whichever way, and that's fine. In the meantime, we can block Neelix at any time, indefinitely if necessary, if they re-start this sort of editing or otherwise go against policy. However, if other editors support an indefblock, I won't vote against. -- ] (]) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*Just noting that the prior block before this was a sockpuppetry block, which I lifted as I found their explanation of how they came to make their edits plausible. The further editing since the unblock as outlined in the block actioned by Black Kite seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Neelix is not currently doing anything on en.wp that needs to be prevented, and has agreed to stop his problematic redirects. Should he restart, then a block would be preventative and justified, but a block now would just look vindictive. ] (]) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::What if he restarts, then agrees to stop again? Would blocking be vindictive again? Because that's exactly what happened this time. It's not the first offence, that's pretty clear by now. For how long will the start-and-(promise-to)-stop game will be played? At this point, I actually do hope the media pick up on this story and shame "us" for not having taken any actual action yet. ] (]) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*Are we looking at the same editor, ]? Rosguill never unblocked this editor but Beeblebrox did back in December. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, blocking would then be preventive, not punitive. Neelix is on a final warning now. -- ] (]) <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated-->
::There's a few comments here that seem muldly disconnected from exactly what happened previous to this, but probably not to the point whee it changes the math on this latest block. ] ] 02:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Exactly. One more inappropriate redirect means a block. What is called for now is calm heads, not jerking knees. ] (]) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::It appears I was unclear. I was quoting Rosguill's reminder about RUSUKR in the conversation ''about'' a possible unblock . My point wasn't about the block itself, but that the editor received an additional warning about their edits in that area. I missed including that specific diff. ] (]) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You guys are too funny! When do tickets for your stand-up tour go on sale? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::''<drops mic>'' -- ] (]) 19:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC) ::: ] (]) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hehe, free backstage passes are in the post :-) ] (]) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::One more, or 80000 more in the span of 5 years, like last time he was warned by means of being blocked? I really hope the people who now oppose blocking will keep his future behavior under tight scrutiny. ] (]) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I think we're in a bit of a holding pattern because the ArbCom motion has neither passed nor failed at this point. If it fails I have no doubt someone will draft a case request (I'm willing to help). ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::"''One more, or 80000 more?''" is a perfectly reasonable question, and the answer should one. If an agreement made years ago was not followed up, then the fault is surely distributed and if the subject got no adverse reactions for so long then it is surely not unreasonable for them to think what they were doing was acceptable. The onus was on the editor to not create inappropriate redirects, but it was surely also on the rest of the community to review those that were made and offer some feedback? And if no criticism was forthcoming in five years, it's surely reasonable for the sanctioned editor to think things are acceptable, isn't it? What it is important to remember here is that what we are looking at is a lapse of judgment rather than any deliberate attempt to cause problems, and no matter how big a lapse it is (and I think it's pretty big), a community simply cannot succeed if it does not make allowances for the blindly obvious fact that there are many different mindsets that contribute to that society. To my relatively small mind, Misplaced Pages's biggest challenge is to work out a way to assess other people's potential contributions without judging them by our own individually relatively small mindsets. Or in other words, to avoid turning things into management by outraged mob (because that really is what I'm seeing here). ] (]) 22:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Neutral''', my feelings are exactly those of The Anome above. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - In the absence of any meaningful action from ArbCom, and the lack of a community-based desysopping procedure, this is all that the community can do to deal with this person. I understand the "preventative versus punitive" argument, and I do not find it convincing in this context. A person who has been doing a certain behavior for many, many years will sooner or later return to doing it, or some variation on it, and an indef block will prevent that from happening.{{parabr}}I doubt that this proposal will succeed, but in the wake of the revelation of problems on Commons as well, and of ArbCom playing totally unnecessary procedural games, I, as a member of the Misplaced Pages community, feel that this must be done, despite the opinions of editors I respect highly who oppose it. ] (]) 20:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BMK. This is a no-brainer. The ambivalence of other editors on this issue could be a greater problem than Neelix's disruption. ] (]) 21:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
**I look forward to your dragging said ambivalent...enablers? off to ArbCom. Good luck with it. Aren't you the master of the little sneer, coming by a day or two afterward to see what you can piss on. I see this is exactly your first contribution to the case; I'm sorry if me and some other ambivalent editors, the ones who in your opinion are the ''real'' problem, have already done the real work for you. ] (]) 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BMK - As I said above I'm all for giving second chances but an admin causing disruption of this magnitude deserves indef blocking, Had this been a normal editor or even a troll/vandal they'd be blocked in a blink of an eye so I don't see why he shouldn't be just because he is <S>(or atleast was)</S> an admin!, In a month or so I honestly feel he'll restart the redirects I really do, I don't believe blocking here is punitive either. –]<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*:And if he does, block him then! ] (]) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Beyond My Ken. It seems clear that this person has lost the confidence of the community and should no longer be an administrator. An indefinite block is the surest way to prevent the obsessive and clearly inappropriate redirect creating activity. ] ] 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*:What has an indef block got to do with loss of confidence as an admin? Those seem to me to be two different things, surely? ] (]) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*::I believe that these are two highly related things and not at all discrete, {{U|EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne}}. Simply desysopping him, (which I support), does not stop him from mass creating inappropriate redirects. I see him as a net negative and believe that it is best for the encyclopedia if he is blocked. ] ] 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*:::Fair enough, and thanks for the reply. I understand your point. ] (]) 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BMK. Since the behavior has occurred more than once a block would prevent it happening again. ]&#124;] 21:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Arbcom's failure to act makes this necessary. ] <small>(])</small> 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*:Have you requested an ArbCom case? ] (]) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and I can probably include '''nine editors that support community admonishment above'''. I mean seriously, this thread is starting to resemble a lynch-mob. (a) '''Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive.''' He has apologised profusely, and this is just not necessary. (b) Having looked at some of the redirects he's created, a great many have logic to them. People type in inaccurate search terms, and guess what this will help them find the relevant article. I would like to remind everyone that Misplaced Pages is not censored, and maybe some people really are going to refer to breasts as titties etc. (c) The presence of these redirects are not greatly disruptive. They are just waiting for someone to type something inaccurate in the search bar. It's not like he's vandalized articles or anything. This whole thread has been blown out of proportion to a great extent. Come to your senses. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">]&nbsp;]</b> 22:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' one-year block for semi-automated editing which was disruptive in a major way. They need some time to get a life outside of Misplaced Pages, and refresh their approach to life and encyclopedia editing. There is evidence that such a remedy can be successful, per a former administrator who ranks in the highest tier by edit-count, and who has returned to editing in a most positive way. Now you want to talk "vindictive", after over ''three years'' the Arbitration Committee is ''still'' standing in the way of allowing even any limited form of automated editing, "broadly construed" by this generally well-respected high-profile editor. Now. ''that's'' vindictive. ''That's'' punitive. ] (]) 23:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*:What semi-automated editing did Neelix do? Serious question, as I've seen no evidence of such. And if there was any, was it the "semi automated" nature that was the problem? ] (]) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''One year''' for now. There is still a chance that that user may come back as productive user. But not before a long break.--] (]) 00:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::Sure, but "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". It just means that the length of the block isn't pre-defined. He could be unblocked at any time for various reasons (including an unblock request that convinced the reviewing admin that he had ''really'' understood the issues that led to the block). ] (]) 00:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - given the obsessive editing behavior (continuing even today at Commons while this discussion was going on), I'm 100% certain there are going to be socks. Should be easy to spot though - just make ] moderately less fanboyish and he will show up to protect The Precious. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I originally thought GW's motion to desysop might be the right way to go, given the workload at Arbcom and the possibility it would be a straightforward vote. However in the time following the initial motion, a number of facts have come to light, including evidence which might mean admin tools were abused, so I think the current expectation that the motion will fail and a full case will ensue is the right way to go. Given a full case, evidence will be provided, some of which will relate to how Neelix has contributed to cleaning up the problem. If he is blocked, he will be able to say "I was perfectly willing to help but because I was blocked I could not". For that reason alone, I am opposed to a block, so that he has the physical capability of contributing to the cleanup, and failure to do so will be relevant. Should a single new redirect be created, I would support a block.--]] 02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, this is more or less my thinking too. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose per ]. We should wait for Neelix to comment before deciding anything. Given many of these redirects are obviously offensive why are so many folks posting links to them here? Making them red -- and therefore make stand out '''really well''' -- does not make en-wiki a better place. See ]. <small>]</small> 02:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per BMK. Should be blocked at least a year. A serious breach of community trust calls for protective measures. I am sorry to say I !voted for this character for admin, so my taking the time to correct this situation seems especially appropriate. Opposers are unconvincing. ]]] 03:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' - What? Why? What edits has Neelix made ''since this ANI began'' and ''after he promised to stop'' that warrants the ]? ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::None this time, but up to about 50000 after last time he was blocked for a similar reason and he likewise promised to stop. How many more times shall we play this game? ] (]) 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BMK. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There is now a ] open at RFAR. ]] 10:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per punitive. ] (]) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Blocks are preventive, not punitive, so block if Neelix begins creating inappropriate redirects again. With regard to other problems, these will likely be examined by the Arbitration Committee, and I don't think we should prejudice that by preventing Neelix's participation unless he begins disruptive activity again. ] (]) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Let's give the editor some time to demonstrate his productive contribution before lowering a hammer that can't easily be lifted. ] ] 01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I stumbled upon this debacle rather late and am still looking over all the details, but my initial reading of the situation indicates that a block would be a slight overreaction and wouldn't have any net positive effect for the encyclopedia at this time. I don't see evidence of ''currently active'' disruption that needs to be prevented immediately. Lesser editing restrictions should be considered first for the long-term before going to the last-resort remedy. ] (]) 03:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and also appose any unilateral blocks threatened by at least one admin here. Since there is a discussion no admin should act without paying attention to a consensus established here. Blocks are supposed to prevent damage to Misplaced Pages, and this block would make no difference as Neelix has already agreed to cooperate. ] (]) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Blocking would be appropriate if his response was to deny that there was a problem and start a new round of mass creating silly redirects. It's not an appropriate reaction to "I'm sorry. I won't do that anymore." ] (]) 07:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''- a block now would be purely punitive. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - still no evidence of deliberate, intentional, or malicious wrongdoing, and zero evidence of continuing disruption. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


=== List of the original redirects === == User talk page access, Wiseguy012 ==
{{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)}}
Since people have been !voting on what should happen to Neelix, I've realized that his most egregious examples of "bad" redirects are only to be seen mentioned in this thread, as single examples. I assume a lot of the redirects have been deleted (either by Neelix himself or by others). Many redirects I'm seeing now in his contributions list are either okay or simply redundant, but not "terrible".
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)
I know that administrators can see the full list of created redirects, but I reckon the rest of us can't. I think to appreciate the extent of the "damage", everyone should be able to see the full list, even as the worst culprits get deleted. Can someone please provide it? ] (]) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Hello, ],
: These are what I found through viewing admin deletion logs: and I think get the worst 1000 or so. This is a link to Neelix's deletion log where it is possible to he how much help he has provided - very little to date - in cleaning this up. ]] 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
: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)
::Looks like {{u|Diannaa}} got a lot of the really bad ones. Who can forget such timeless classics as ], ], ], and ]? And, apropos, ] and ]. Thank God he apparently never heard the term "jugs" or "rack" or other similar slang or this would have been many times worse. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{noping|Wiseguy012}}, lower g. ] (]) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Links appear elsewhere on this page, but the thread is so huge, it's worthwhile to repeat them in this section: The complete list is available at ]. If that page is too large for you to load, you might go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html. Items that were deleted by me and Drmies on <s>Friday</s> Thursday night (before the lists were prepared) are not included. -- ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 23:39, 7 November 2015 (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)
::::], not that it means much in the scheme of things but ] wasn't one of his, but a very long-standing redirect, and is actually probably legitimate (although "boob physics" and "breast physics" are probably more common terms). It's a recognised problem in computer animation and videogame design that animating female characters is notoriously difficult because breast tissue doesn't move in the way other parts of the body do, meaning animation software needs a separate specialist plugin for—um—jigglage. (A , reliable sources in respectable media outlets discussing the matter.)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 18:07, 8 November 2015 (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)
:::::Wow, you learn stuff even on this board. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. ] (]) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:You can also check Neelix . --] (]) 23:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Still misuse of talk page for spamming. ] 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
absolutely amazing - from ] to ] back to ] in a few days. ] (]) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (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 ==
===Fansite farm===
There's another type of cleanup needed - I've started on it but I'm Neelixed out for the day. There's a whole crop of articles related to ] and her favorite cause, which is human trafficking apparently. A good example is ], which contains one or two sentences about how she won a beauty pageant and then an extensive description of her friendship with Tara Teng. There's also a big crop of advocacy articles about minor local organizations, figures, local theater actors etc. that have some kind of connection to Teng's activism. I took a quick run through ] and AfD'd the worst offenders but more work is likely required. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:This was called to my attention by someone offsite but the Great Booby Rampage seems to have started not long after Teng posted an Instagram photo of herself breastfeeding her child. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::It started before then on Commons; after retiring here, Neelix began creating GBR categories there , beginning with ]. Here, most of the articles I've looked at in ] were begun by Neelix, as was the template itself. You've already AfD'd several of them. ] (]) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I just cut massive amounts of non-notable junk from ] (she likes to visit the aquarium I learned) and AFD'd a local dance studio that performed somewhere the amazing Tara was at once, but there is way more to do. ] (]) 06:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, but did you know she likes to go barefoot and wear dresses? And when she was in grade school she learned slavery was wrong. She's so amazing! ] <sup>]</sup> 10:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, did you know that "as a child, she read about Amy Carmichael, who had sought to end the prostitution of children in India"? BEST. PERSON. EVER. ] (]) 16:55, 9 November 2015 (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:
===a passing non-admin chimes in===
*, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
Hi. As a non-admin this seems like an easy one. The editor thought he was doing fine. Seriously, he thought, that since no one stopped him, the Wikipedian community approved. Ten of thousands of edits, nobody told him to stop that nonsense. He saw purpose in those edits, and thought others did to. His user page picture looks like a teenager, so his creative teenage male mind focused on all the terms it could think of concerning the vocabulary of human sexuality, reasoning "If I could think of it, someone may also think of it and look for it on-line, and in that case it will redirect them to Misplaced Pages" and went about his merry way on what will probably become a legend about Misplaced Pages and require its own mainspace page and possible category. But for now he's been seen, and aghasted at, and ] (is there a redirect to roundly spanked?), and should be let loose to go back and work upon his very very good edits and his beneficial additions to Misplaced Pages. He had his own day! Not everyone gets that user template, he earned it. I'd say give him a redirect-ban, and let the living legend live on here to continue some really nice additions to the project. ] 17:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
*, , , , : POV caste-based insertions
*, : POV caste-based removals


This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a ] t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . ] (]) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:One problem with that theory is that he ''was'' warned before (by means of a block) because of his absurd redirects, in 2010, and they weren't even ''this'' absurd yet, I reckon. By the way, most of us "chiming in" here are not admins... while this guy ''is'' an admin, and should know a lot better. ] (]) 17:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:], you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks, never knew that, about the non-admins. Thought it was a closed forum. Even if he was blocked once I think a very minor punishment is better than a long ban. The resulting discussion of this, and how funny it is, is both shame and honor enough. Judging from his comments that I've read (haven't read the whole epic) he will certainly not be redirecting things again, which means that all of the energy and man-hours he threw into a personal project (that he somehow thought was okay because nobody stopped him again, not since 2010), will now go into the area of his editing and communicating expertise. He's a kid, he's likely to be editing Misplaced Pages for decades. Give him a break now and the project comes out ahead. ] 18:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fine, don't block him, but don't allow him to continue as an admin, either. If we do, what message is sent, what example is given? That teenage admins can get away with shit like this because they're teenagers and "aw shucks", he learned his lesson? Sorry, but this goes beyond all that. He's lost the community's respect and trust. If he had done all of this before being handed the bit, no way would he come out of his RFA successfully. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 11:12, 9 November 2015 (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)
::He's not a teenager, he is a teacher in a university. ] (]) 13:45, 9 November 2015 (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 ] ==
===Another says: yes, but the wikihounding of Neelix also has to stop===
I also want to call attention to a pattern of Afds by ] that also amounts to ]y behaviour and ]. Apparently, any article Neelix created apparently has to go, and fast, based often on flimsiest rationales. See for example these four:
*]
*]
*]
*]
... which are especially poor noms. I wasn't aware of redirect issue with Neelix. But I don't like to see Canadian charitable organization articles taken to Afd simply for having committed the cardinal sin of having been created by Neelix, which in some cases, is all that is "wrong" with them. This is not how Afd is supposed to be used -- this is payback, not good editing. ] (]) 07:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:] nominated some real junk too by Neelix that is going down at AfD. A little hypocritical of Shawn to be mass objecting to each nomination purely based on who nominated them. AfD will correctly sort out the keepers from the junk. ] (]) 08:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::That's ''not how Afd is supposed to be used.'' We're supposed to do our ] work, we're supposed be motivated by a desire to ] content, not punish. ] (]) 08:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::The article ] may provide some insight to what's wrong with that sentence. --] | ] 16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If any of this stuff can be salvaged then I'm glad to hear it. Frankly I've been removing some of Neelix's insane puffery like and from all over the encyclopedia, and I'm not the only one. A lot of these articles were created just to shoehorn in these ] mentions somehow, or to make her seem more important by having more blue links in her article.


I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.
, this young woman, whose main reason for having a BLP here is that she won a beauty pageant, had an article longer than ].


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.
{{u|1ST7}} gets a good-natured ] for promoting ] to good article when it looked like a stalker's shrine. Also {{u|Hawkeye7}} and {{u|Wolbo}} for blindly reverting editors who were trying to trim some of the crazy level of detail, and {{u|HJ Mitchell}} who protected the article when it was in that state. Someone should have seen then that Neelix had a problem and intervened, it might have prevented what ultimately happened. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:Oh, and {{u|Cirt}} gets a trout for ]. Just because someone has authored a featured article doesn't mean they get a free pass or that their articles can't be edited. Also goes for {{u|Laser brain}}. The only voices of common sense on that page are {{u|Ritchie333}} and the checkuser/clerk. Sometimes when an article draws in attention from off-wiki it's for valid reasons. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::And there's this Afd, too -- ] -- from a different nominator. It seems to be on its way to deletion but for the life of me, I can't see why, per ]. But we seem to be gripped by Tara Teng Derangement syndrome.16:00, 9 November 2015 (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.
"Wikihounding"? Oh, grow up. --] | ] 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*It may be a good idea if he is topic banned from both ] and ] broadly construed. I do not know if ArbCom will look at topic ban remedies or just de-sysop, it depends on the case scope. If not this needs to be revisited before he starts this whatever it is back up. ]] 16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:*I don't know if I'd support a topic ban on 'Human trafficking broadly construed'. He's created a number of perfectly valid articles on NGO human rights orgs in the field, which appear to have nothing to do with Teng -- but are at Afd mainly because they're being tarred with the same brush, I think. 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::*What are examples of these valid articles? I don't think he should get a topic ban from human trafficking if they're free from Tara Teng. Note that ] includes a photo of Tara!!!! ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*I've also been questioned on my talk page about this by {{u|Rhododendrites}} - answering here. Short answer - aside from (but probably related to) his fascination with Tara Teng and titties, Neelix also gave interviews to the press identifying himself as an "advocate" and "well-respected Misplaced Pages writer" (ahem). These are mutually exclusive when you edit in your area of activism, which he was most certainly doing. There's a big ] there - now, I left the obviously notable organizations and people alone (aside from cutting out Tara Teng fluffery) but a large proportion need to be looked at by the community for failing ], ], and ]. That is now happening at ] and the debates will play out. I think the worst of this has been addressed though cleanup will continue for some time. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Wikimandia}} I've linked to four Afds to organization articles that I think fit the bill, at the top of this section.] (]) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*...aaand it looks like ] has been relisted as a Good Article despite all of this drama. This place never fails to entertain. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::It hasn't been relisted, it's because you opened and closed ] unilaterally without any other comments, which is not how the GA procedure works. As ], "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it". In that resspect, it's not really any different than the ] which despite all parties thinking it didn't have a hope in hell of meeting the FA criteria anymore still took 2 months to go through. I know people are tripping over themselves to shit on Neelix from a great height, but just have a bit of patience and follow given content procedures calmly, before they backfire on you. Be cool, people. ] ] ] 17:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::*{{ec}} All that's happened is an administrator has re-added the removed template because the discussion hasn't closed on delisting. This is sort of my point: in the current hysteria over Neelix, boobies, Tara Teng and what have you, we're not going to shut down Misplaced Pages policy like this is the first time there's ever been a problem. ] (]) 17:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::(ec)It's really not what we need to have more off-wiki attention on this, talking about a stalker writing an article about the object of his affection and Misplaced Pages maintaining it as a "Good Article" despite all of this creepiness coming to light. In any case the article is still carrying a bunch of maintenance tags and no longer resembles the article in the form it was in when listed. It's really ] to insist on process in situations like this but there is a lot of that going around, apparently. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::In that case, I suggest you start a thread on ] saying that any editor should be allowed to delist a GA because they felt like it without any other comments or views from third parties. I suggest starting with ]. Now, there's a bag of ] over here with my name on it, so if you don't mind..... ] ] ] 17:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::And part of the 'hounding' includes language. Neelix chose to divulge his real name. There's a real person out there reading this, who's been nothing but cooperative and apologetic, who feels dreadful. I can't imagine how low he must be feeling. To publicly call him a "stalker," as you have done, could be construed as defamation. ]. ] (]) 17:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm quoting the terms used in the off-wiki conversations already taking place. I'm not calling him a stalker, they are. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, I see. Noted. Poor guy. thanks, ] (]) 18:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::If you truly looked at the ''tens of thousands'' of appalling and inexplicable redirects (like ]) I think you'd feel less sympathy. A collection of admins and editors have spent hours deleting the worst two or three thousand of them and looking at the rest. If Neelix truly felt apologetic and cooperative, he'd help more in the clean-up efforts. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::But he has offered to help. In fact, it was his . ] (]) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Shawn in Montreal}} - actually he posted on his Commons talk page after that. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I know. He offered an apology and expressed how dreadful he feels and got a good kicking in return. Look, I know people have reasons to be upset. ] (]) 18:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: ...Anyway, we're going to need an uninvolved editor to conduct the GAR. (I was involved in the past, so not me, though I would have liked to do this.) Any takers? ] (]) 18:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


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.
===Proposal: Topic ban Neelix for sexuality===
*This is seriously too much and is making me literally sick. I don't know if I'm supposed to suggest this at ArbCom, but since people above were discussing it, I'm going to be bold and say Neelix needs to be topic banned from anything related to sexuality, including nudity, female anatomy, human trafficking, prostitution and rape. When you go through all of this stuff together, it's just too overwhelming. I'm reading these articles he created on human trafficking and former prostitutes. These are articles related to people who are repeatedly victimized and sexually violated, and I have a serious issue trusting the motivation of someone who thought it would be a good idea to create 34 permutations of "Run or rape game" as redirects to ], a three-sentence section that does not mention the term. Nor does ''any'' reliable source ''ever'' mention the concept of such a video game genre called "Run and rape" - it's apparently a very niche market and only found on forums and '''rape fetish sites'''. It's not even on ]. That there are admins and long-term editors on here defending him is inexcusable and an embarrassment. If Neelix were not an admin, I seriously doubt he would have so many defenders. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 19:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. Run or rape games are certainly, verifiably a thing, and if they offend you, well then congrats, you're probably human. , but we don't censor things for being just fucking awful. (Don't click that link by the way if this thread offends you). ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 21:35, 9 November 2015 (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.
===ArbCom case request===


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.
In case anyone missed it, ]. ] (]) 17:59, 8 November 2015 (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
== {{u|Legendswillneverdie}} ==


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.
Can someone check the contribs of {{user|Legendswillneverdie}}? I'm nearly asleep, but I have a strong suspicion that they are purposely introducing incorrect dates and info into articles. Thanks, ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 08:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*Offhand I see that , which changes the date for ''The W'' to November 21, seems to be correct per and . I'll check to see if there's anything else, though, since this was the first edit I'd looked at. ]] 08:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:* was unsourced, though. So far I'm getting the impression that this might not be done maliciously, but he does need to make sure that he sources everything with a RS. I notice that he's been warned about this on his talk page, but I don't see where it's been explained why he needs to source things. I figure if he continues to do it after that point, then a short block may become necessary. ]] 08:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Tokyogirl79}} I dunno, I saw edits like these all over with edit summaries like "fixed typo" ... these are not typos. It goes back farther than this. Either we had a lot of incorrect dates, or these are being deliberately changed. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
*The main method to my madness right now is that I'm giving him a little ]. He's officially been warned that this isn't acceptable without proof and he knows the reasons ''why'' this is unacceptable. Basically, giving him a warning will give him one last show of good faith and one last chance to shape up and edit within policy. After this point if he continues on then we can block him much easier because we'll ''know'' that he's been warned about this and he cannot use "I didn't know" as an excuse. I could have just blocked him, but he could have contested the block by saying that everything was unintentional because of ignorance. Now he doesn't have that excuse. I've left him a warning about properly labeling his edits as well. ]] 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::Checked 3 of those diffs above ("Duets: The final chapter", notorious B.I.G.), he changed it from Dec 2 to Dec 20, google gives Dec 2 but , , all give Dec 20. Ghetto Commission: he changed it from Nov 18 to Nov 10, Amazon says Nov 10. Comin Out Hard: changed from Aug 1 to July 6, amazon gives July 6. With the one Tokyogirl checked that's 4/4 correct edits. Google’s "knowledge box" always gives the other version, but google based their DB on wikipedia, so... ] (]) 23:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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


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)
The account ] appears to be an ] with the sole objective of ]. Across numerous articles, the account engages in apparent vandalism by removing sourced content with no explanation, for example removing a sourced sentence about a massacre , or repeatedly deleting references to Muhammad accepting slavery , , edit warring to claim a region was ] , , , , edit warring to keep in positive opinions about ] despite these being tagged for 1½ year , , . In addition to all of this POV-pushing across the board, efforts to discuss with the user on article talk pages just result in ] ("''You need to stop lying through your teeth'' and "''You need to stop lying''" ) in return. <br>
'''In short''' As the user is ], just to push their POV, I propose either an indef block or a topic ban for articles related to Islam and Muslim history. ] (]) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (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.
:The first three edits/diffs are against policy. But: The edit on ] is backed up by two cites including a JSTOR article which can be checked. On ], '''you''' are the one at fault, for gutting and article rather than doing what the tag said: "'''{{xt|Please help improve the article by editing it to take facts from excessively quoted material and rewrite them as sourced original prose.}}'''" Unless you're going to do that, leave the quotes as they are rather than gutting the article. ] (]) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}}
::Well, I respect your opinion <small>(and you're welcome to talk part in the discussion I started at ]</small> but it's not about the content issue. ] (]) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (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.
: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 ==
:::<s>By the way, you '''must''' notify a user when you file an ANI case about them, and you haven't done this. You must do so, and you can use the template at the top of this page.</s> You haven't provided any evidence that the editor is a SPA or is only here to push a Muslim POV. You have provided evidence that he has added sourced material and has replaced sourced material. You have also provided (only) three instances where he deleted valid sourced material, but you have also provided three instances of where you deleted valid sourced material. So I'd say it's a draw, and there is no case here. ] (]) 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 23:06, 6 November 2015 (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?
::::], I notified the user '''one minute''' after posting this discussion , so your accusation against me is entirely false. The diffs I posted clearly show the use '''deleting''', not '''replacing''' as you claim , , . Yes, I removed material that had been tagged, I explained why in the edit summary and in the discussion. As for providing evidence that a user is a SPA, I showed that virtually all edits are in one single area. How else do you show a user is a SPA? ] (]) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (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.
:::::OK, I missed seeing your notification; I've striken that. The rest of my point stands, and there is no case here. You provided seven diffs of the user adding or replacing sourced material. The material you mass deleted (83% of the article) three times was not "tagged". There was a tag at the top of the article that suggested converting the material into prose, which you did not do. As far as showing the user is an SPA, he has made 550+ edits to 150+ articles. You have shown exactly three problem edits by him and three problem edits by you. There's no case here. ] (]) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::''"Three times"''? I removed it '''two times''' from the article (and explained why), after which I've tried to engage both Alexis Ivanov and you in a discussion. Alexis's answer was "''You need to stop lying through your teeth'' <small>(something you apparently didn't have a problem with)</small>, your answer was to give me your permission to edit Misplaced Pages . Neither of you have bothered to even discuss the undue issue. So that's falsely accusing me of not notifying Alexis, falsely accusing me of deleting material three times from the article <small>I did remove similar material '''once''' from '''another''' article</small> and refusing to discuss. Not a great display of admin intervention. ] (]) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


With her new account, she quickly {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic|diffonly=yes}}, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including:
:::::::I stand corrected -- You gutted the article twice, and someone else did it in between. I'm not an admin. The three restorations were correct per ]. I have already discussed your claims of UNDUE on that talk page. If your only valid claims against the user are three deletions, and two talk-page posts which contain the word "lying", I'm afraid there's still nothing really actionable here; all of the article issues have been cleared up and if you want any changes to the Non-Muslim views of Ali article you are free to add to it or change the quotations to prose but not to gut the article without consensus. ] (]) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: If someone appears uncivil or uses words like "lying", it's best to ignore that and focus only on content and policy. Often editors who are upset use less than civil language; confronting them about it generally only increases their upsetness. So it's best to work collaboratively with all editors, even those with whom you disagree, and focus solely on article content and Misplaced Pages policy, avoiding using the word "you" or specifically referring to the other editor. ] (]) 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


* This sequence of edits to ]:
*After the exchange above, I realize I may have expressed it badly. The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies, gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave ''some'' examples; I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges. The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect. While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about it. I don't really think it's the same as repeatedly removing material from several articles, deleting tags, and only discuss in terms of personal attacks. ] (]) 23:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270570240|Edit summary: ''men don’t be utterly deprived and ruin women’s lives by being a sex pest challenge (don’t revert if you’re a man, you’re disgusting and I want nothing to do with you guys)''|diffonly=yes}}
** {{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.
:::::::: Again this guy is lying again and again to push his won views and REMOVE a huge portions of the article, I never pushed any POV content, why you lying again through your dirty teeths, stop putting out again and again, the Cossack article was provided with SOURCES, the Muhamamd Slavery edit was taken after a user complained in the talk page and was backed sources from the same place the sources were taken and the issue was resolved at a user's talk page with no edit war. Your filthy attitude in Misplaced Pages is not welcomed and your failed attempt at bureacrcy and your petty blocking warning, not only are you willing to remove huge portions of the Ali's page you are willing to sneak up at me and stab with a knife at my back and undo all my edits in various articles, which as you know I will undo them again. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ] (]) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I think ] sums up the problem. Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today , as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once) , and promising to continue in the same way. Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia? ] (]) 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::And on it goes . The fourth time the user refuses to discuss, just lashes out at me (and others) for disagreeing. We've really tried to discuss, but all we get are vile personal attacks in return, over and over again. ] (]) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


I'd like somebody to reach out to her to give her some advice before it gets to that point, and—while I generally think that any editor can do any job on Misplaced Pages regardless of gender—I think this a situation where a non-male or cisfemale administrator should be the one to make the contact. —''']''' (]) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: >''The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies''<br />The problem in my opinion is a user like you deleting huge portions of articles, because it doesn't meet his 50% positive and 50% negative quote and accused of undue weight and cherry picking without bring any evidence, it seems you are talking out of your ass and then you claim you are doing this and following policy? <br />>''gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples''<br />>''I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges.''<br />But you are involving yourself right now and not only that you are willing to lie about me and accuse Muslim POV, those non-Muslim scholars that I backed up in the Cossack article that you lied through your teeth must be pushing Muslim POV, what an embarrassment<br />>''The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect.''<br />Those articles have reached a resolution, what warnings you are talking about, please go be a creep and dig deep as much as you want<br />>''While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about''<br />Only after you removed a huge portions of it and now you acting like a good boy, pathetic lies, why not start discussion FIRST, especially when you try and remove a whole page and now you are aiming to delete a page that discusses what is suppose to discuss.] (]) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::<small>So that's four accounts of calling me a lier, one of being a creep, one of being pathetic, one of talking out of of my ass. In just one comment. And that's the response I've got on every talk page when I've tried to address ''the articles'' with this user. </small>] (]) 00:20, 7 November 2015 (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 ] 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. ==
:::::::: >''Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today''<br />Yes because you are lying when I see liers like you I point them out.<br />>''as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once)''<br />Again you are lying, I removed and '''EDITED and ADDED content''', can you please stop lying to push your own POV content<br />>''Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia?''<br />Yes let's ask someone like you who is ready to delete articles and remove huge portions ? My record is out there in how I built Misplaced Pages and add content, you can always cherry pick what you want and accuse people of cherry picking ] (]) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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.
:::::::::Calling editors "scum" and accusing them of lying is unacceptable. Please stop that. ] ] 01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


:::::::::: Yes, I will refrain from using that word ] (]) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


:::::::::::Thank you Alexis. I appreciate your efforts. Best regards. ] ] 01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


::::::::::::]'s promise to ] of refraining from such persona attacks did not hold even two hours, I'm afraid. ] (]) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


::::::::::::: Where was the personal attack, when '''I see lies I say the way it is'''. or do you want me to back of and say you are telling the truth. I refrained from personall attacks like SCUM, Son of a B and many more, Dr.K recommended me to refrain from such things and I'm doing it. ] (]) 02:31, 7 November 2015 (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)
:::::::::::::: Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks ''and'' vulgar insults. You certainly should refrain from that sort of name-calling. It's not just a matter of using specific words, though: "attacking" doesn't just mean "insulting", and accusing an editor of lying deliberately (nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies) could certainly be seen as an attack. I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here. Make of that what you will. ] (]) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (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.
::::::::::::::: >''Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults.''<br />And that is why I refraining from them.<br />>(nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies)<br />That is exactly why I refrained them. I don't want to hurt his feeling.<br />>''I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here.''<br />How can I earn my good boy points back? I don't want you to get angry at me.<br />>''Make of that what you will''<br />'''YES SIR!!''' ] (]) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


More specifically this line:
While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz, I and several other editors had a similar dispute with Alexis Ivanov last month, ], which illustrates that this is a pattern of behavior. The user similarly engaged in personal attacks against every other editor who contributed to the discussion. He, in fact, displays utter contempt for all others, with an aggressively ] attitude. Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section. Alexis Ivanov wanted the image to be removed, noting that it overlapped into the following section, and due to its content. Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment. Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling. This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP. ] (])


{{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)
:: >''While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz''<br />Well it's not the same dispute so you don't have to lie about it.<br />> ''Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section.''<br />What can I say I'm passionate about the Ottoman Empire.<br />>''Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment''<br />It was fixed because we reached a resolution.<br />>''Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling''<br />Did you expect me to give a kiss?<br />>''This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP.''<br />Well you can stop beating the dead horse anytime you want. ] (]) 04:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Along with this contemptuous response, Alexis Ivanov has also placed a on my talk page, as well as I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article. As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::>''Along with this contemptuous response''<br />How is it contemptuous?<br />>''Alexis Ivanov has also placed a on my talk page''<br />I want to know if there is a problem you have with me that is personal, can't a man ask a question<br />''as well as I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article''<br />You didn't bring your case to the talk page to remove a source content, you simply cut it out. Now you are crying foul??<br />''As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.''<br />I'm here to build wikipedia, and my record speaks clearly. I have contributed to my fair share and won't have the likes of you, discarding it, your only excuse is the Ottoman article and now you are here to throw your low jabs, looking for your opportunity ] (]) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed. As I explained in edit summaries (, ), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced. Alexis Ivanov the passage without explanation, then and demanded I discuss on the talk page, when my reasons for removal were clearly stated. He offers no defense of the passage, simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here. This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his ] attitude. ] (]) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


::::::>''And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed.''<br />It's not an edit war, why you are going to assume bad faith, I'm trying to collaborate and discuss your problem with the name, or am I know allowed to edit your pages? let's discuss this as Misplaced Pages editors in the talk page, we can fix this article me and you.<br />''As I explained in edit summaries (, ), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced.''<br />Can you explain more in the talk page?<br />''and demanded I discuss on the talk page''<br /> It's not a demand, it's being collaborative enviroment where we can discuss in the talk page why you want to remove the material and searching for better quality statements if you want to re-modify the statement.<br />''when my reasons for removal were clearly stated.''<br />You need to explain your reasons in depth in the talk page and I have started a new section in the talk page to talk with you.<br />''He offers no defense of the passage''<br />I did all you have to is clean the tears from your eye and stop crying and whining in here and go to the talk page, as I have explained Procopius of Caesareamentions the word Moors in his books. That goes back to the 6th century C.E.<br />''simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here.''<br />There is no retaliation, please assume good faith.<br />''This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his ] attitude.''<br />There is no battleground attitude, it's a dispute resolution attitude and reaching a consensus and understanding. All you are doing is ] ] (]) 05:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well.
The reported user has aggressive behavior and battleground mentality. He abuses edit summaries and talk pages , , , , , , .--] (]) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (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.
*'''Comment''' As the user continues to edit war, and violating 3RR, just as they continue with their repeated personal attacks at several others users (I count at least 20 recent ] violations, I've reported the edit warring . ] (]) 11:36, 7 November 2015 (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.
The user was blocked by Bishonen for 31 hours, the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo, again violating ] immediately after the block. ] (]) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


'''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
: >''the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo''<br />The first, second, third and fourth and many more numbers (until '''FIFTEEN''') edits I did was my page, you are having this vendetta against me, and you are too eager to '''spread misinformation about me''' and push your own views while coming from the back and saying all these false things about me, while never putting yourself to follow the rules you seem to uphold<br />''the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo, again violating ] immediately after the block.''<br />I didn't violate any ], you can go and read it yourself once you try your best to be non-biased and see there was no single instance of personal attack on the page? I had to start my own investigation to understand if he had a personal problem with me in his own talk page and I committed any wrongdoings while I was discussing with him, you are too quick to reach hasty conclusion about me, I would refrain from such tactics. That puts you on the negative spotlight. ] (]) 00:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::I can read it for myself, yes: you accuse him of lying. You were previously told not to do that. Then you were blocked. Smart people learn from the outcomes of their past behavioral patterns. ] (]) 00:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::>''you accuse him of lying.''<br />Are you saying I should LIE and tell him he was being honest? These are not mere accusation these were statements on how I felt before and I quote "It's also equally difficult '''when people lie to me''' and accuse me of wrongdoings"<br />>''Smart people learn from the outcomes of their past behavioral patterns''<br />And I did what evidence do you have I didn't, I followed all the rules laid out in the Misplaced Pages guidelines once my blocking was expired? COME ON] (]) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::In addition to the attack directed at ] , ] also accused another user of lying . So that's two cases of accusations of lying/dishonesty from a user barely back a few hours from a block that was partly the result of frequent accusations of "lying" directed at several users. As ] says, the user does not seem to learn regardless of warnings and blocks. ] (]) 00:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: >''In addition to the attack directed at ] ''<br />There was no attack directed at Laszlo '''SO PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION'''<br />>''also accused another user of lying .''<br />That was no an accusation that was a fact, when Iryna accuses me of provided Ottoman spin on Historical articles, you make sure your don't talk, but when I reply providing my evidence you scream and attack me? Yes I assume I should let people lie about me and my character and my contribution to Misplaced Pages in the historical articles.<br />>''the user does not seem to learn regardless of warnings and blocks.''<br />Getting blocked doesn't mean that you should stop and spread your butt cheeks so others can violate you! It means you should follow '''the Misplaced Pages guidelines as per stated in the ]''' and I did to the 100% fullest of my effort, I just got couple guys like you on my back all the time, quick to be pedantic and equate showing the way people lie about you as personal attack. So what other political correct word should I use instead of the word Lie which is being pushed by the sensitivities of Jeppiz? ] (]) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Perhaps you should not comment on others at all. If you don't know the difference between discussing and insulting, better play it safe and avoid it. Any time you want to comment on another user, ask yourself if it's necessary. ] (]) 01:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


The page-in-question ''should'' be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. ] (]) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: >''Perhaps you should not comment on others at all''<br />Perhaps you shouldn't spread misinformation about me, You and others. I hope those words are politically correct I;m using, I want to be as '''sensitive''' to you as possible 100% and respect your mental health and well-being as a human being who founds every word I say a personal attack.<br />>''If you don't know the difference between discussing and insulting''<br />I know the difference it's not my fault that you have vendetta against me and write biased statements and spread misinformation about me. Surely a high level and well-respected person like you would understand, from my point of view. Or not.<br />>''better play it safe and avoid it.''<br />I don't play at all.<br />>''Any time you want to comment on another user, ask yourself if it's necessary.''<br />And I did, again your view of the world is not the center of the universe, you have a personal problem with me and eager to expand on it to block me or ban me. All this because you disagree how to handle with the Ali page and you '''dare''' accuse me and then stalk around me. I know your personal policy is if someone is spreading misinformation just let them do it Unless your name is Jeppiz then you are allowed to break all rules ] (]) 01:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: I'll leave this discussion for now, I think the issue is quite clear. ] (]) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: It's extremely clear, all you have to do was follow the Misplaced Pages Civility guidelines and we would have a better Ali article, instead of a firestorm. and again I hope my words are not a personal attack, and that I'm '''sensitive towards your well being'''. ] (]) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::}}My apologies to Laszlo Panaflex and Jeppiz for taking so long to join in on the discussion regarding this user's relentless and aggressive, ] behaviour. I'm feeling a little tired out by combative, POV new editors of late and thought it merely a matter of time before ] kicked in. This new editor is ], simply ] his/her way through articles having found some sort of evidence that everything in history revolves around being attached to the Ottoman Empire. S/He has even only just left a pre-emptive strike on my own talk page () after I'd tried to ignore a barrage of attacks including ethnic slurs and, well, pretty much everything you can hurl at another editor starting from to , , , and .


: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'd responded to the very first missive asking that it be taken to the talk page of the article in question (). Alexis Ivanov has no interest in engaging with issues surrounding what is DUE or UNDUE in an infobox (please see the ] article's talk page and ). It is simply impossible to engage with someone who doesn't want to ] when one tries to explain policies and guidelines. Resultantly, I'm trying to get on with other work on Misplaced Pages and leaving the article covering the 'Rus State 1649–1764' - with huge, undue allusions to Protectorate Status under the Ottoman Empire sitting directly under the name of the state. It's going to have to wait because I truly don't want to have to deal with another editor of this character again for a few days at least. Anyone who knows the first thing about the Zaporizhian Host would laugh at the irony, but I'm not going to go into details as to how ridiculously misleading this is as it's not a content dispute. Plainly put, I don't think this user has the ] to edit here full stop. Someone who can't get past {{tq|"I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again"}} and {{tq|"I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me."}} is not interested in 'getting' how Misplaced Pages works. --] (]) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


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


* ] appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. ] ] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::>''I'm feeling a little tired out by combative, POV new editors of late and thought it merely a matter of time before ] kicked in.''<br />I know y'all like hating on new people, but I ain't new, been here since June , but as usual discirmination against new comers is allowed, while patting on the the back for the veterans is encouraged.<br />>''This new editor is ], simply ] his/her way through articles having found some sort of evidence that everything in history revolves around being attached to the Ottoman Empire.''<br />Again with the '''misinformation''' , didn't we talk about and settled it. Please stop from spreading '''MISINFORMATION''' about me, you never took the time, to see all the edits I have done since coming here and quick to give a pro-Ukranian twist. Where was the cherry picking??? Giving specific dates of the vassalage? after relentless source checking and finding?? Not only that I got you 3 different sources????? and you still angry that Bogdan asked to be the slave of the Ottoman Sultan???? The only thing you want here is for Bogdan to come out from his grave and confirm his historical actions this is simply ]<br />>''S/He has even only just left a pre-emptive strike on my own talk page ()''<br />I'm pretty sure I'm a male, but you can accuse me of being a female all you like. Secondly there was no pre-emptive strike, I asked you to stop '''spreading MISINFORMATION''' about me, and accusing me of giving "a slanted Ottoman Empire spin" which is a '''HUGE MISINFORMATION''', with your logic if I read about the Mongol Empire and edit the Kiev page on the date of the battles they lost, I must be giving "a slanted Mongol Empire spin", anyone who isn't pro-Ukranian must be against you, I don't abide by these false dichotomy claims you write about me.<br />>''pretty much everything you can hurl at another editor starting from to , , , and .''<br />Please for the love of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, stop playing the victim, PLEEEEEEEEEASE. This victim mentality that you are playing is not working.<br />>''I'd responded to the very first missive asking that it be taken to the talk page of the article in question ().''<br />And what did I do, I packed my good boy bag and went to work, followed the guidelines, assumed good faith edit from you and fixed the refrences, since you were right my refrecnes was bad I refrences the whole JOURNAL, I picked the article, the pages, the author, and the whole date, issue and volume, so '''PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION''' about me<br />>''Alexis Ivanov has no interest in engaging with issues surrounding what is DUE or UNDUE in an infobox (please see the ] article's talk page and ).''<br />Why are you '''spreading misinformation''' again?????<br />>''It is simply impossible to engage with someone who doesn't want to ] when one tries to explain policies and guidelines.''<br />FROM DAY ONE I showed respect to you, and you showed me no respect and disrespected, even after following the rules you laid out you still disresepct? and now you are playing the victim, Have you ever asked yourself why ], never disrespected me and why I never disrespect me, because I followed the GOLDEN RULE. Me and him/her had a discussion and it went well, but you are too eager to show disrespect upon other users at the same TIME, SPREADING MISINFORMATION that will fuel further problems, instead of bringing people together , you can learn a lot more from ], one of the best Misplaced Pages editors out there.<br />>''Resultantly, I'm trying to get on with other work on Misplaced Pages and leaving the article covering the 'Rus State 1649–1764' - with huge, undue allusions to Protectorate Status under the Ottoman Empire sitting directly under the name of the state''<br />There is nothing UNDUE, except the fact that you don't like the article, and you are willing to censor history and accuse others being pro-Ottoman, just because you read doesn't make you pro or anti of any .<br />>''It's going to have to wait because I truly don't want to have to deal with another editor of this character again for a few days at least.''<br />Or you know we can have a civilized discussion and show me some respect and I will show you some respect. Again please stop spreading misinformation and playing the victim here<br />>''Anyone who knows the first thing about the Zaporizhian Host would laugh at the irony''<br />You mean anyone who knows how to be a pro-Ukranian biased Zaporizhian Host would understand and laugh?? Of course they would, you know all these qualified historian who I backed up are pro-Ottoman BAD PEOPLE who know nothing.<br />>''but I'm not going to go into details as to how ridiculously misleading this is as it's not a content dispute.''<br />Well we can fix the article in it's own talk page and talk about it.<br />>''Plainly put, I don't think this user has the ] to edit here full stop.''<br />That is actually a good tactic, disagree me with on the Cossack page and suddenly I;m the devil, by removing you can remove the edits and so on, '''GENIUS''' and push your own biased opinion, you know what I think this is a good tactic, when the article had the Russian vassal;age there was no single peep from you at all, make sure your slavic neighbor get's a free point not only that it was no citation, WOW, and when I came here after reading a book, to add the references, you rain down on me and showed the most disrespect a person can show to others, well I became patient the same way Bogdan did and followed WP rule to fix the article and still you are here showing no single aspect of respect and willing to disrupt wikipedia<br />>''Someone who can't get past {{tq|"I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again"}}''<br />what is wrong with those words, as I said I wanted to move forwards and I gave you my hand, a hand of friendship and after you slapped my hand you are quick to become the victim??<br />>{{tq|"I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me."}} is not interested in 'getting' how Misplaced Pages works.<br />You are '''misrepresenting my words'''. Just because you don't know about the Han Dynasty doesn't mean you can't edit the pages. if you see a mistake, this was the example I was using, I have gained some knwoeldge of the Cossacks and Ottomans dealing, the focus is between the two and their relationship, and I came here to modify the article. ] (]) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*:I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks ]:
*:{{quote|An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.}}
*:The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here ] and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a ''hell'' of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.
*:Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has ]ed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As ] said, {{tq|"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"}} ] 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. ] 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place ''after'' I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer ] problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an ] mentality. ] (]) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::@] appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. and . I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:
*::::{{tq|The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late}}
*::::Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @] appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up ''all over''[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. ] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. ] (]) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find ''years'' worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.
*::::::If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling ] 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. ] (]) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. ] (]) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. ] (]) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Respectfully ] and ] are behavioural problems. ] (]) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse ().
*'''Block Already''' the users first edits show a detailed knowledge of user talk and sandbox pages, indicating a returned editor, and his first mainspace edit is the vandalism of a real reference. Any admin that spends 30 seconds looking at this should block this sock indefinitely. ] (]) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
: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)
::Ah, yes. The in that sequence is very revealing. Remarkably proficient for a virtual newbie. --] (]) 04:37, 9 November 2015 (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)
::>''Ah, yes.''<br />Ah, NOPE<br />>''The in that sequence is very revealing.''<br />It reveals how bad I was, I actually botched the references, since I was getting used to the visual editor. I also forgot to mention I used to edit for a Naruto wiki PAGE before venturing in this Misplaced Pages I just remembered now and I can provide evidence by commenting on my naturo user name from the Naruto Wiki, I have some basic Misplaced Pages skills.<br />>''Remarkably proficient for a virtual newbie.''<br />Those non english Wiki edits are actually new and was part of my outreach to understand what was the difference and how they view things, I think Russian Misplaced Pages is the most interesting, I also am not a virtual newbie since I was part of the . from December 2014 till January 2015 and here is my , hopefully you see this. ] (]) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


:{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}}
*'''Don't Block''' >''the users first edits show a detailed knowledge of user talk and sandbox pages''<br />WRONG, I played around the talk page and sandbox area and I still have some sandboxed, my Misplaced Pages knowledge was very low, I played that Misplaced Pages adventure game only 2 missions I believe and then started playing around, before going to edit articles, I still use the sandboxes because it gives me idea how Misplaced Pages operates like in the references and templates, I also followed the Misplaced Pages cheatsheet. So please stop spreading misinformation about me.<br />>''indicating a returned editor, and his first mainspace edit is the vandalism of a real reference.''<br /> You are accusing me of things I have never done, I don't have or done any socket puppet thingy ever, and my first edit came after reading about about an article about Hongwu Emperor and I was checking about his birth and I fixed the[REDACTED] article, you can thank me later and updated the references by providing it from the Cambridge history China.<br />>''Any admin that spends 30 seconds looking at this should block this sock indefinitely''<br />Anyone with a piece of brain that goes back to my user page and talk page and the sandboxes will see how innocent I am in the regard of my first edit, you are accusing me of things I HAVE NEVER DONE and implying I have socket or a returned user???? I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Also here is the after my first and second pages which were the user and talk, editing a sandbox wasn't that hard, I learned after finding about sandboxes by some users (User:Example/Sandbox) BEFORE creating that page and the only thing I did was type the Hongwu Emperor next to my name, it wasn't rocket science. ] (]) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (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)
::Not rocket science... Perhaps you can explain why it is so difficult for you to read and understand policies, guidelines and questions posted regarding your edits on article talk pages... Or why, after being asked to be civil my numerous editors, you persist in harassing editors claiming that you are the one being bullied. If you have the intelligence to work out how to do thing that you want to do (from creating templates to anything else that appeals to your interests) why do you appear to have such difficulty in learning the basic principles of editing Misplaced Pages? It seems that you're ] for anything other than what you want to push, nor do you feel any sense of embarrassment or remorse for being appallingly abusive to anyone who dares to question the quality of your input. --] (]) 05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::: >''Not rocket science''<br />As in not rocket science in editing[REDACTED] as I have been editing the prior year in NarutoPedia.<br />>''Perhaps you can explain why it is so difficult for you to read and understand policies, guidelines and questions posted regarding your edits on article talk pages''<br />I try to educate myself at the best of my ability and I showed you when I changed the reference in the Cossack page. But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?<br />''>Or why, after being asked to be civil my numerous editors, you persist in harassing editors claiming that you are the one being bullied.''<br />And afterwards I was blocked and learned from my mistakes. Where was the harassment? When someone is out there tarnishing your image you have the right to comment about it.<br />>''If you have the intelligence to work out how to do thing that you want to do (from creating templates to anything else that appeals to your interests) why do you appear to have such difficulty in learning the basic principles of editing Misplaced Pages?''<br />I never implied or said I have the intelligence. I am ware of my past mistakes, I just not fond of how you treat your fellow Editors and you are the one who started all this mess and even when the mess was resolved you want to bring it up here and cause more turmoil, I know your end game which isn't about civility compared to ] who showed me the utmost respect a one can be granted in the same talk page, so what is wrong with you? The qurstion should be directed at you, it is not as you have a history of INNOCENCE, a one look at your record show me how you have dealt with people.<br />>''It seems that you're ] for anything other than what you want to push''<br /> '''WRONG YET AGAIN''', I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages and I'm indefinitely here to help, I'm here to push non-biased facts about history but you are characterizing me as pro-Ottoman? simply because of the Cossack page? With the same logic you espouse, creating the Polish-Ottoman war campaign-box, BY YOURS TRULY (me!), THAT WOULD BE some weird pro-Polish or Pro-Ottoman depending on your mood today?, I'm ]<br />>''nor do you feel any sense of embarrassment or remorse for being appallingly abusive to anyone who dares to question the quality of your input.''<br />What sense of embarrassment??? I'm pretty sure those are private thoughts, it's not my problem your view of the world and your inability to read my mind is not up to par and vastly different and on top of the influences by your hatred, anger and disrespect towards me. ] (]) 06:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ], ] you need to man up and apologize ] (]) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (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)
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)
:::::"Man up and apologize"? Methinks the lady doth ''"But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?"'' protest too much. ] (]) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?
::But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. '''] ]''' 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: {{tq|There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines}}. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.


:::You’ve been doing this for ''years'' and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been ''very'' explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @]’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a ]. ] 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::>''"Man up and apologize"?''<br />Or don't, nobody is forcing you, it is very good we have people like you spreading misinformation about other users, your quality is what makes Misplaced Pages great, please sir continue in your personal crusade you have against me without backing any evidence.<br />>''Methinks the lady doth ''"But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?"'' protest too much.''<br />Methinks that wasn't a protest, that was a statement directed at people like you, no matter how many evidence I bring forth to protect myself from '''MISINFORMATION''' there will always be some disrespect from you and others, I mean I have already put down the rumor you have created about me in mere seconds, yet you are still here, if I have done that to you I would be banned, the soul standard is very clear. ] (]) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (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)
::::::Frankly, Alexis Ivanov, I don't care whether you're a newbie or a returned editor ] a block. Please stop leaving more and on my talk page in order to 'prove' that you're innocent of something. What this ANI is about is your ongoing, relentlessly abusive, aggressive and ] behaviour, and the fact that you refuse to pay attention to any attempts to discuss the pertinence of your contributions but, instead, follow on with ] constantly casting ], ethnic slurs, being abusive... the list of ] goes on and on. --] (]) 21:12, 9 November 2015 (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)


== Repeated WP:GS/AA violations ==
::::::: >''Frankly, Alexis Ivanov, I don't care whether you're a newbie or a returned editor ] a block.''<br />You cared enough to believe in the rumors, as I said I'm from Narutopedia which I was there for one year and afterwards started to go on Misplaced Pages and established myself hear created a user page, talk page, sand-box to learn how to use the "edit source", so once I proved my innocence now it is "I don't care", thank you Iryna for believing in me and giving me a chance for my freedom and innocence, it is lovely having people like you who don't care and are ready to jump on the wagon.<br />>''Please stop leaving more and on my talk page in order to 'prove' that you're innocent of something.''<br />Well I had to talk to you and prove my innocence, in your own talk page so you can understand the severity of the accusations lead against me. I wanted you to understand.<br />>''What this ANI is about is your ongoing, relentlessly abusive, aggressive and ] behaviour, and the fact that you refuse to pay attention to any attempts to discuss the pertinence of your contributions but, instead, follow on with ] constantly casting ], ethnic slurs, being abusive... the list of ] goes on and on.'' <br /> Oh my sweet Iryna? Why you have to hurt my feeling like that, this is a personnel crusade started by Jeppiz becuase he didn't like the way Ali article was going on then afterwards came here accusing me of being POV pushing, even though there were people agreeing with me on the Ali page then stated stalking me around and editing behind my back and slowly putting a knife through me, and pretending innocent, and then you got Lazslo who had a personal issue with me on a picture placement of an article who wanted to come here and make his points and then called you so you can come here and fuel the fire while he left so you can continue doing his job and throw more misinformation towards me, I'm here to build an encyclopedia and make Misplaced Pages a better place. Also what ethnic slur did I use? I'm pretty sure you are Australian, I have nothing against Australian people, especially Australian of Ukrainian descent. I mean your community is well-established ] (]) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: Also my dear Iryna you are accusing me of "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children" in your ] also your wall of text accusation is again wrong, how many I suppose to prove my innocence towards you. Someone in your age should understand this ] (]) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
How long will this go on? After being blocked by ] and returning less than 24h ago, ] has already violated ] umpteen times, including here on ANI, against (at least) ], ], ] and myself. The above accusation of me being on ''a pesonal crusade'' is yet another example. I think the ] given to Alexis Ivanov is long enough already, the user clearly cannot cooperate with anyone. ] (]) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:"Also my dear Iryna... Someone in your age should understand this?" Enough is enough. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::I concur, enough walls of text from this disruptive/combative user. I've seen their sort "everyone is out to get me" ("and I will edit war and insult to show it") attitude too often. ] (]) 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Exactly, every post by Alexis seems intended to insult. After the block, the new strategy seems to be sarcasm (''"Oh my sweet Iryna? Why you have to hurt my feeling like that"''), martyrdom (''"talking me around and editing behind my back and slowly putting a knife through me"'') and patronizing ("''Someone in your age should understand this?''") And all of that can be found on ANI(!) in just the last hour. ] (]) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::A conservative tally by me yields a whopping '''16 examples of personal attacks and incivility''', at minimum. All on this thread. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
::>''How long will this go on? After being blocked by ] and returning less than 24h ago''<br />The block didn't say you are not allowed to defend yourself against accusation by other editors, or are you against freedom of speech and willing to censor me after blocking me? One editor went as far as accuse me of being a sock puppet, surely you will not sit idly and what I did was prove my innocence against you and others.<br />>''] has already violated ] umpteen times, including here on ANI, against (at least) ], ], ] and myself.''<br />I didn't violate any ], and continued to be a civil editor, doing what I do best which is making Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia.<br />>''The above accusation of me being on a pesonal crusade is yet another example.''<br />Are you implying you have no problem with me, when in fact you stalked me on many Misplaced Pages pages after you got angry at me on the Ali and the Ali Quote pages which resulted on me being blocked. I'm here to prove my innocence and restore my freedom.<br />>''I think the ] given to Alexis Ivanov is long enough already, the user clearly cannot cooperate with anyone.''<br /> There is no rope, I have cooperated with many editors, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I didn't. Hopefully you can open your eyes and see for yourself ] (]) 21:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


*


*
:::(ec)Oh dear, here we go again with a prime example of going beyond ] to simply not even paying attention to any form of explanation. We've already been through the WP:ASPERSIONS bit. "ASPERSIONS" was alluded to by me . Alexis Ivanov looked at the wrong paragraph and responded , thinking that I was pointing to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children". I clarified "ASPERSIONS" . Alexis Ivanov responded with ... and is still not actually paying attention to what "ASPERSIONS" means. As I've already observed, how does one even communicate with someone like this.


*
:::As regards on my talk page, I'm not even going to go there because I don't think this person comprehends anything beyond their own myopic universe, therefore I hold no hopes of their being interested in why such things are a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies. (But, just in case, I'll point to ] for his edification.) --] (]) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (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)
== User:Aryanprince ==


:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{user|Aryanprince}}
::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{user|37.122.177.152}}
:::@] 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)
: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 ==
The user (one user, does not sign himself) continues, despite warning, to restore an older unstable revision to the article ]. . On the IP restored a section on the ethnonym of Serbs, which includes various theories (see ]), a section on DNA results (see ]), a section on "identity" but which does not include such information (I have since created ]), in place of the summarized "ethnology"-section (from March) which includes interlinks to each article for further information, as the unstable revision included claims and data which has no academic concensus, but is still included in the respective articles. In my subsequent reverts, I used the summary and commented "unconstructive", "disruptive".
*{{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)
I reverted when I noticed it on . The user reverts it on , I then revert on , , without a word from him, he then contacts me , reverts , I message him , then revert , awaiting to initiate a discussion, he contacts me in .
:Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: ] (]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. ] (]) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.
:He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.
:I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. ] (]) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8) ==
Here comes the incident. In Serbo-Croatian, specifically Montenegrin, he says {{tq|"I am telling you}} {{small|(more like English "You, listen to me", an order, which marks his language)}}, {{tq|the Genetics must be at Serbs as it always has. That links exist does not matter, many things have their own pages then they exist in specified size in other articles. That which is linked there nobody reads, only that which stands in the main article. And don't you tell me nothing for the last time because Misplaced Pages was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother}} {{small|(insult)}} {{tq|so that you may establish order here. Don't in any event undo me once more that which is nicely referenced because I will make you a "party" here have you understood me?}} {{small|(threat)}} <!--In Serbo-Croatian: (Ja tebi kazem genetika ima da stoji na stranici Serbs kao sto je i uvjek stojala. To sto ima linkovano nema veze, mnoge stvari imaju svoju posebnu stranicu pa ih ima u odredjenoj kolicini i u drugim clancima. To sto tamo ima linkovano to niko i ne cita, samo ono sto stoji u glavnom clanku. I nemoj ti meni da govoris po poslednji put nista jer nije ti vikipedija od baba ostala pa da ti zavodis red ovdje. Nemoj da si mi slucajno undo jos jednom ono sto je lijepo referencirano jer cu festu da ti napravim odje jesi li me dobro cuo?)-->
{{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.
He then reverted again in 23.32 (2RR). After this, I started tracing him. Apart from this "conflict", the user (IP) has earlier made uncivil comments, such as:
*""
*""
*{{user|95.155.24.199}}: ""


A few examples that I sourced in my :
So to summarize, as I've understood it, the user has a nationalistic agenda, trying to use the unstable revision (the theories on ethnonym and DNA results) as "proof" that the neighbouring peoples are Serbs, and that the Serbs are an antique people. That is why he insists on the unstable revision. He is simply ].--] 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


IP ] is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion.
What I wrote many times you translated wrong and you didn't translated it correctly only to accuse me for what I didn't wrote. But to make it easier for you I will write it on English here and now. Yes, Misplaced Pages is propaganda when it comes to Serbs. A simple example is the two you mentioned. Novak Djokovic is the sole article which name is not written on native language (special characters). A sole tennis player, sole human being whose name you didn't wrote with the special characters. And guess what, he is a Serb. Another thing is Serbian genetics. 95% nations on Misplaced Pages, in their articles they have Genetics sub theme where their Genetics is written. Serbs had them too until few months ago. Then someone came and in two clicks removed Serbian genetics in their main article. I have to tell you that this genetics research was done by European Union, it is on their Official Website. Everything was referenced, written correctly (not by me, by someone other, long time ago). Then one day I saw someone removed it, and I undone the removal. Since then this started. And I will tell you why that happened. The research proves that the Serbs have the most Haplogroupe I2 (Illyrian genetics) in Europe. Variating from minimum 30% to maximum of 60% in Herzegovina. Someone does not like this fact. That is why they delete it. Things like this are standalone proofs that Misplaced Pages is Serbian antipropaganda. In addition I have to tel you that I don't expect nothing from this what I wrote. The decision has already been premade. My account is going to be banned because I am Serbian. But I couldn't care less, only thing that matters to me is my pride and arrogance. You see, I am arrogant even in this situation. This is what you will never feel. My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles. --] (]) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:], do I understand you correctly? If you are banned you will return using other accounts or editing from an IP address? ] (]) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::It certainly sounds like a declaration of intent to me. The comments about ] appear spurious, as there's no attempt to whitewash either Djokovic's Serbian nationality or the native spelling of his name; ] is the common English-language spelling of his name, and he uses that spelling of his name in his professional life, see -- ] (]) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Out of the five edits made by this IP:
Common English spelling is also ] but on Misplaced Pages you still use special characters as ], for him and another 100 000 articles. --] (]) 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


.--] 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source.
:And again.--] 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Delays ] on ] from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added.
First I thought that this was a simple Serbian nationalist. Now I see that it is an illusionist. Here are some edits from {{user|95.155.27.190}} with strikingly similar patterns (nationalism, unsigned), though with an opposite stance and sloppy with punctuations, in 2012: ] from "Serbs" to "Montenegrins". : "Knowingly or not,you are supporting Serbian nationalistic rhetoric on Duklja article.But ok,some day eventually the truth and common sense will prevail". about ]: " Somehow Serbs(It is obvious that Serb wrote this article,like so many other articles about history of Montenegro)conclude that this means that Duklja was Serbian land???Needless to say that majority of the Duklja population were Roman Catholics unlike Eastern Ortodox Serbs.Why are you doing this?". With {{user|Aryanprince}}, the person acts like a Serbian ultra-nationalist (strangely, with a Nazi username), trying indeed, to play on the West vs. Serbia card. The person, with other IPs, identifies as "Montenegrin", and not "Serb". This is a ].--] 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
User {{user|Zoupan}} is mentioning me as some IP adress but i dont know why. I never talked about Duklja on this wikipedia, and never changed anything on Nemanjic Dinasty. The IP adress he is writing here is not mine, and I also have to tell you that in Serbia and Montenegro we still have dynamic IP adresses, so what is my IP adress today is someone's else IP adress tomorow within our Internet provider. So only what I write as Aryanprince or Alliance is mine edits, nothing else. I use Aryanprince nick because when[REDACTED] merged they changed my old Alliance nick and told me I need to use new nick because someone from english[REDACTED] has the Alliance nick. I see he also charged me for Nazi nick but my real name is Arijan, when I write it on english j=>y and I write Aryan. I don't know how he connected me with Nazi Germany. I want him to apologise to me now cos insults, because combined first and second word war Nazi Germany with its satelites killed billions of my people. I really cant stand this insults anymore.--] (]) 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added.
== Disruptive user & personal attacks ==


Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
{{Userlinks|All Hallow's Wraith}}


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)
User disruptive on article ], repeatedly restoring maiden name of non-notable mother of subject, which has been removed per editor commentary (e.g., ]'s) on ], ], ], and ]. Also that mother is deceased when she is living per sources in article talk page.


:Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban.
User has engaged in ] in article edit summary, article talk page and on my talk page. I ignored the first on my talk, since he and , but he has continued: -- ] (]) 08:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:
*article edit summary:
: ] (]) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*article talk page: ,
::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)
*my talk page: ; ; .
*also, his talk page: . -- ] (]) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (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 ==
:Enough. Enough. This guy Lapadite77 watched '']'' (someone should revoke his TV privileges). The following exchange occurred:
{{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:
::]: "My father was American..."
* After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ].
::]: "What was your mother, she was Australian"
* 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 ].
::Blanchett: "Yeah"
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.
::Lipton: "Way back?"
::Blanchett: "Way back, of convict descent I think"
:Cate Blanchett's mother's name is June Gamble, as established in reliable source that no one has disputed. However, based on the television exchange I just mentioned, Lapadite77 decided that Cate Blanchett's mother's maiden name is "Wayback" ("Way back") and . Now he wants to remove the name altogether.
:Now, we all make mistakes. Even really stupid mistakes. I have no problem with Lapadite77 making a mistake. In fact, when we first discussed this, I was very cordial and polite. However, after that point, any sane human being should have realized their folly, laughed at their own mistake, and moved on. I find this a reasonable and rational reaction.
:This guy Lapadite77, though, can't let go. I guess he thinks he never gets anything wrong, ever? And now he's decided that if we can't have "Wayback", we shouldn't list any name at all! He says that per BLP, we shouldn't list her mother's name at all, even though we list the names of parents of almost all reasonably famous people. Well, obviously, he doesn't actually believe that, he just doesn't want a non-"Wayback" name in there. We know this because he the name himself, so apparently it was OK then.
:So how am I expected to react? Why are we having this conversation? Why? Why do you I have to explain all this? It's such a nonsense issue, spurned by a silly mistake. Just because Lapadite77 misunderstood something on TV, we have to waste all this time? Really? If he doesn't expect personal attacks, what does he expect?
:Again, '''We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback"'''. So what do you want from me? ] (]) 09:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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)
User does not mention that my , after watching the cited interview, was made a month before and I then ]. Editor commentary there agreed it was best to leave maiden name out because of ambiguity, and BLP was also cited (which says in the lead, ''"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"''; moreover the aforementioned policy sections (WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY) strongly recommend not including such insignificant info of non-notable family members. I'm not sure why All Hallow Wraith strongly pushes for its inclusion. More personal attacks from user: in his talk page edit summary. ] (]) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
<!--{{hat|1=A wild ] appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}-->
:You made a silly error, you were wrong, it's over, the page is back to normal (back to the reliably sourced version, by the way). The end. Stop talking about this. Why on earth are you still pursuing this? I just don't get it. I repeat, '''We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback"'''. ] (]) 10:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
:*I'm tempted to close this as "no shit", but I'm afraid that this may not be enough for Lapadite. I would like for other editors to look at this; as I get older my ability to separate the absurd from the real is seriously declining. I guess this began when I started reading '']'', and it's not helped by the recent discovery that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. ] (]) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than ] so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. ] (]) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. ] (]) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. ] (]/]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear {{confirmed}} result.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. ] (]) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Liz}} I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--{{hab}}-->
:::::::No problem, ever, with unarchiving, ]. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:::As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). ] (]) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::*I've requested full protection due to the edit warring. Content not withstanding, no matter how frustrated a user becomes with others, there's really no valid justification for making personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. If one must release tension, it would be better to do so offline. The fact that All Hallow's Wraith has shown no remorse for such personal attacks is also worrisome. Suggest blocking user if this incivility keeps up. ] (] / ]) 15:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*I'd laugh at this, if this situation weren't so indicative of Lapadite77's editing behavior and attitude to dealing with other editors. He wants his own way, ] when he doesn't get it, then resorts to ANI's and RfC's when his filibustering doesn't eventually wear his opponent into submission. While I agree with {{ping|SNUGGUMS}}'s point above, Lapadite77 has a tendency to bring this out in people: because if an admin doesn't step in, you're liable to get months and months of and and . While this topic may seem completely ridiculous, I'd strongly suggest we all use this chance to determine whether Lapadite77 has the civility and ] to continue editing Misplaced Pages. He has been massively disruptive to several articles in his short time here. ] (]) 23:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{u|Homeostasis07}}, you really bothered to comment here? ] was on a past ANI discussion in which you, an involved and biased user with prior conflicts, made personal attacks against me and your own PA thread was deleted. What a joke. Please, stay away from me. ] (]) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::], right, the reason I reported him was because he continued his personal attacks after he reverted himself, both on my talk page and the article's talk page, and he clearly has no problem with it. The content dispute itself (which is just him wanting the inclusion of the maiden name of a non-notable family member, against recommendation from BLP policy) would be settled at the BLP noticeboard. ] (]) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::*Case in point. Lapadite77 is referring to ANI, which was not "deleted" — merely archived due to inactivity, presumably because the ANI which he started blew up into a ''''''. {{ping|Drmies}} was never involved in any way whatsoever. This is just the latest in a long string of examples of Lapadite77 trying to tarnish the name of any user with which he has ever had a content dispute or some form of disagreement. For the record, I've not had any communication with Lapadite77 for the past year. I hold no ill will against him, but I must admit that I've seen him make edits to articles on my Watchlist which made my head shake. And it always ends up the same — if he doesn't get his way, he resorts to ''Badfaith'' accusations, ''filibustering'' and unnecessarily protracted ANI's/RfC's. As far as I can tell, he has never once accepted a consensus – he just bitches and moans and badmouths other editors wherever he can until all descent is lost in a mirage of filibustering. This thread here should be the straw that broke the camel's back. It is beyond ridiculous. ] (]) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You know very well the separate PA thread you opened because your then ally was reported was removed from the active project page by an admin not long after you opened it. Another hypocritical, prejudiced, and fictitious ] from you speaks for itself. Another time you involve yourself in a discussion in which I am participant, and has nothing to do you, to laughably trash talk. It's ] by now. Carry on please, and do support another user making personal attacks, but I've nothing else to say to you. ] (]) 01:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Lapadite77}}, please stop contributing to this thread or I will block you for disruption. I've seen enough of your personal attacks here to warrant a block--and that this stems from, ahem, a particular misreading would be funny if you weren't so serious about it. {{U|SNUGGUMS}}, I don't have much of a problem with the occasional "fuck off", especially in a case like this, when someone has basically been baiting another editor. I'd still prefer it if another admin look over this and close it, if it needs to be closed--the sooner the better. ] (]) 02:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::Sorry? Personal attack? Where? And what stems from a misreading, the content dispute? It actually doesn't, as it doesn't concern the original discussion of "wayback" on the talk. The report is not about content dispute, that's for the BLP noticeboard, it's about personal attacks, which I assume you don't mind then? "when someone has basically been baiting another editor" - What in the world? Again, where? ], I wonder, why in the world are you telling the editor who reported another on clear personal attacks to stop contributing to the thread (and threatening them with a block if they do so), make unwarranted accusations about them, say you don't mind the personal attacks against them, ''and'' you say '''nothing''' about the editor who just imposed himself here making personal attacks, which you know, from past discussion here, has done so before? If I remember correctly, if you distanced yourself from that aforementioned ANI report I made because you considered yourself involved (yet closed the thread), why exactly are you personally involved here again (and not in very good-faith manner), especially after ]? Intentionally ignoring personal attacks and threatening a block on the user who reported it, I mean, really? ] (]) 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Why can't you move on? Is winning so important? Judging by this section and a quick look at some of the diffs it is obvious that All Hallow's Wraith is not in the habit of doing bad things. Why would you think that inserting the mother's name was ok when you did it, but is WP:ALLCAPSVERYBAD when someone else does it correctly? ] (]) 04:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you Johnuniq. Lapadite, BOOMERANG. What those old cows you're dredging up from the canal (as the Dutch would say) are doing in here, I don't know. ] (]) 05:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Page protected. ], ], ] 04:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


== User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article ==
:Just thought I'd throw in an uninvolved comment, as I've seen everything that's been going on from a distance, and I understand that it's not my business. In my opinion, this has all been blown out of proportion, and what's been happening is really not as bad as Lapadite is making it out to be. From my point of view, it's obvious that AHW is just expressing his displeasure of being reverted all the time, and I can understand that. Additionally, Lapadite made a mistake, it backfired, and he changed tack (opting not to include the name at all when it is done everywhere else), which caused the conflict with AHW when he was trying to be civil. Lapadite is out to come out on top. I've seen it – beginning with the , which was . I think you need to let this go, mate. '''<font face="Arial">]<sup>]]</sup></font>''' 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|4TheWynne}}, you ] revert on my talk (though I'd given an edit summary). And not sure why you even bring up some irrelevant past revert on the page? Is there a grudge held over it or something? I wouldn't have presumed that from the discussion on my talk. Anyway, I don't know why a content dispute is being discussed and whose wrong or right in it, while the reason for the report ('''personal attacks''') is sidestepped, since ANI isn't to settle/argue over content dispute; that can be discussed elsewhere (talk, BLPN, etc). {{ping|Johnuniq}}, what's this shoddy claim about winning? The report is about the personal attacks from the user reported, evidenced by the diffs provided. If I was "reporting" AHW for some content dispute regarding PAG I would've gone elsewhere. So why are these comments only about the content dispute? Should one ignore repeated personal attacks and never report them? To answer your last question, Johnuniq, if the time of the diffs (given), the article talk discussion (linked), and what I'd stated in the OP is actually noted, one can see I hadn't ''inserted'' a maiden name, i'd "corrected" the one in the article after watching an interview with the BLP subject where I understood she gave a different one. Like I already stated above, that edit I made, changing the maiden name, was reverted by AHW a month later and then it was discussed on talk page, where I agreed it was ambiguous and where ] made a good point, and i'll quote: {{tq|If there is ambiguity about Blanchett's response in the Inside the Actors Studio interview, as there obviously is, the Biography of living persons policy requires that we err on the side of not including the information in the article on the basis of this source. Find another source that resolves the ambiguity, or leave the content out.}} Later, I found a couple ''more'' sources that don't state "Gamble" (the maiden name originally in the article), which i'd posted on the talk discussion. AHW ignored that and still went on about "wayback" which had already been settled. The irony. The BLP policy, ], ], recommends against such inclusion, and WP:ONUS is also relevant, ergo, (as I already stated in the OP) per that and User:General Ization's point, I removed it. I couldn't care less about some maiden name, I do care if there is misleading information on a BLP and do uphold the BLP policy in its entirety. I'm curious why no one questions why AHW is so intent for so long on including such info; he hasn't let it go, even after "wayback" was settled and wasn't brought up again, still talking about it. The irony. On a slightly different note, I'm loving accusations from users who've disagreed with me in the past (and apparently hold some sort of grudge for it), and loving the passive embrace of personal attacks. ] (]) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::You inspired me to find and read ] where the colossal blunder concerning "way back" is explored. The "given the ambiguity" idea seems to occur in that section, but there is no ambiguity—your interpretation is blatantly wrong, and the fact that it was explained last April and you are still going on about it shows why an editor might snap and use some invective. Coming to ANI to get your opponent sanctioned might have felt like another good idea, but some of us are happy that editors are human with the consequence that they will occasionally say undesirable things—that is far preferable than someone who cooly was wrong last April and who is still causing disruption while remaining civil. If a comment like ''fuck off'' warranted, say, a 24-hour block, what sanction would be appropriate for someone who is still wasting time after six months? This is a collaborative project and we have to get on with other people. You are welcome to think that "Wayback" was a plausible name and everyone else is wrong, but you should still recognize that consensus is against you, and <u>drop it completely</u>. FYI, many editors find it a bit offensive to name, with no apparent reason, the father but not the mother (]). ] (]) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::So you just skipped over the entire part where "wayback" is not at all the issue, (except for AHW who's been red herring about it), not what the recent edit (mine at least) was about, and already settled - since April; clearly I never reinserted wayback after AHW reverted it and the discussion took place. Big face palm. Moreover, I don't really care if editors here decided personal attacks aren't an issue on WP, I just did my duty in reporting gross incivility including multiple personal attacks, like "back when he (crazily, in a nutty-as-hell manner) believed", "Lapadite77 is why this world is, and always will be, a horrible place", "idiotic", "stupid", "fuck you", "what the hell is wrong with you", "you dumb fuck". In my personal opinion, and certainly I'm not alone in the world in thinking this (lol), anyone who reacts and disrespects in such a way over some maiden name edit (and then sees nothing wrong with it after time has passed hopefully to recollect) has some issues; oh shoot, accuse me of personal attack now, please, so the irony comes full circle. But big cheers on embracing that and throwing out accusations at the person who reports them though. ] (]) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::So everything in my comments here is totally wrong, and you dismiss it all? ] (]) 06:04, 9 November 2015 (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)
== ] ==


:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place, but would an admin mind ]? ], not once, but ], ] and many more, ], ], ] etc. Any disputes should be resolved peacefully, but not in these manners. -] (]) 15:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::Vandalism is vandalism and is ''not'' funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a ''very'' low tolerance for trolls, ''especially'' in contentious topics. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} Notified user of this discussion, warned user <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> ] <sup>]</sup> 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Pinging {{ping|NeilN}} - if you're not too busy could you possibly weigh in here? <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> ] <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 7 November 2015 (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)
::CCL-DTL has not edited since they was warned and notified of this thread. I agree that some of their edit summaries and talk page posts are unacceptable but let's see if they take the warnings to heart. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:05, 7 November 2015 (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)
:::Thank you {{u|NeilN}} <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> ] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 7 November 2015 (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 ==
== User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS ==
{{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}}


This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.!
Troubling development at article {{pagelinks|Schutzstaffel}}. A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with {{User|Jonas Vinther}}. My new reference to '']'' was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: ''"this is not the historical concensus"''.
I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away!
I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he ]
For such behavior the editor has been
Those familiar with the subject of '']'' are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: ''"the SS frequently <u>hired civilian contract workers</u> to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and <u>general laborers</u>."'' Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: ,,,.
'''<font color="darkblue" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">]</font> 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:I'm afraid that the above example is just another example of this persons actions. They have recently tried to start a edit war on the ] article and on my Talk page, claiming that You Tube/ABC is a reliable source, whilst slating ABC (and the BBC) on there user page. I believe an admin warning is the least that should be applied. Thank you, ] (]) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::What a complete load of bullocks! Not even going to waste my time replying to this. If I'm such a horrible editor, ban me and Misplaced Pages becomes a better encyclopedia. GO SUCK IT! ] • (]) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Jonas, please do not tell others to "GO SUCK IT". Highly inappropriate remark. ] (] / ]) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Cool it Jonas. This is not the board to freak out on. Strike it mate. Quickly. ] (]) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::While I don't want to make this a content issue, I will comment that (probably) most historians would disagree with the added content that Barbarossa was a "preventative surprise attack" on the USSR. This has actually been the source of some ] -- in other words, if Stalin intended to strike first. In my (worthless) opinion, Jodl is perhaps not the best source to comment on whether this was the case. While I'm certainly no expert on the SS, I will add that the links provided don't necessarily show a positive light towards the organization -- calling them ruthless, fanatical, and so on is hardly positive. Regarding the forced labour edit, I'm not sure what the exact diff is in that case. Jonas, please, don't inadvertently bolster their case. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::This case is not about the use of a single word "preventative" originating from the Chief of the Operations Staff of the Armed Forces High Command (''Oberkommando der Wehrmacht'', or OKW) ], which may or may not be accurate (and can easily be redacted) even though any reference to a singular author David M. Glantz about the quote-unquote "most historians" allegedly disagreeing with it is ridiculous. This case is about bullying, and about removal of major source of judicial data about the SS history as well as not properly acknowledging the fact that Schutzstaffel committed massacres in Soviet occupied Poland... long before they reached Russia in Operation Barbarossa. I spoke about it in talk, but the evasive and incomprehensible reply from Jonas Vinther was for me the first sign of something more troubling going on. '''<font color="darkblue" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">]</font> 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::There was an issue two weeks ago regarding this article. See ]. Related? ] (]) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I don't think so, as this has nothing to do with redirects. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{U|Jonas Vinther}} has retired. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Considering the reality of how things work on Misplaced Pages, I suggest that in the future we always use scare quotes when indicating that an editor has announced that they've walked away from editing, i.e. '''Jonas Vinther has "retired".''' ] (]) 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] ,
== Personal attacks and disruptive edits by User:Malaylampur ==
While i was trying to improve the ] article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per
] where it is clearly mentioned


"''In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.''"
From the day that {{u|Malaylampur}} was created, he/she has done nothing but reverting edits and attacking other editors (ok I admit: minus 2 edits in creating his/her User and User-talk pages). Malaylampur seems to hold a particular grudge against {{u|MezzoMezzo}}: {{Diff|User talk:MezzoMezzo|prev|689338034|UT MezzoMezzo}}, {{Diff|User talk:Malaylampur|prev|689339321|UT Malaylampur}} and ]. MezzoMezzo has Malaylampur about this almost single-purpose behaviour (not in the most gentle manner, but the message seems clear), to which Malaylampur unregrettably. And then there is ] addressed to me.


Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
Additionally, none of the have been constructive, sometimes (bordering?) edit warring: {{Diff|Nahdlatul Ulama|prev|687057506|diff1}}, {{Diff|Nahdlatul Ulama|prev|687096307|diff2}}, {{Diff|Nahdlatul Ulama|prev|687100100|diff3}}, {{Diff|Nahdlatul Ulama|prev|689337809|diff4}}, and {{Diff|Nahdlatul Ulama|prev|689554288|diff5}}. - ] (]) 01:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:Another concern would be that this editor is apparently demanding people only message them on weekdays . There's nothing wrong of course with an editor only responding on weekdays (or whenever) but it's always going to be difficult to collobrate when an editor demands from all editors certain things for communicating with them, or else they'll simply delete your message. This in particular seems to place an unresonable burden on others, requiring them to save their message elsewhere in the meantime and remember to post them. If that's even possible, as it's a condition impossible to fulfill for anyone who's only able to contribute on the weekend. Plus depending on how fussy Malaylampur is, they need to work out what a weekday is for Malaylampur. ] (]) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:: The two people are removing sourced material with bogus edit summaries, HyperGaruda leaps over onto my edits and begins to attack my contributions. Hypergaruda conveniently leaves out the fact that I was called a troll. These two associates have an agenda to remove things they dont like by following my edits and using bully tactics. Can someone take a look at Hypers last edit He wants to refer to another talk page discussion to automatically make his edits final across the whole platform. Can someone explain to him and the other guy that what they say is not final? There is something called consensus and my reversions prove there is no consensus to remove what was on that page for months before i arrived. I had a tight schedule it is why I ask that its weekdays only ] (]) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{tq|my reversions prove there is no consensus}} Ahem, *points to ]*. Both MezzoMezzo and I have provided arguments for our edits, either on talk pages or in edit summaries. Malaylampur on the other hand has either given none, or only ] arguments. - ] (]) 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: Your arguments like the one I pointed to above are invalid. you like to edit war and help out your associate. Saying refer to such and such and reverting is not valid at all. Go to the relevant talk page and provide valid reasons why you are reverting SOURCED content that was there before I arrived. ] (]) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::My "'''valid reasons'''" for were given on ], which dealt with exactly the same issue. Linking to that made it possible to keep the edit summary concise. Now, will you please tell us '''why''' all my arguments are invalid? - ] (]) 08:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::: You cant refer to another page to make your edits final. The edits you removed have nothing to do with the template. ] (]) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::: What sort of ]-based argument is that someone "can't" give a reason for their edits that's provided on a different talk page? Does the edit summary point to a valid reason? Yes? Then that's good enough. (Of course, the best place to discuss something related to an article is its talk page, but sometimes debates just become cross-article, and arbitrarily restricting where you can give rationales for changes makes no sense.) ] (]) 14:11, 9 November 2015 (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)
== Edit at Cosmo Wright ==


:Hello, ],
I'm asking for additional review of my edit at {{la|Cosmo Wright}}. because I reverted an edit due to the ] concern, then also protected the page due to the apparent edit warring over the BLP issues.
: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)
It appears the subject has legally changed their name. However, several statements are being added which are unsourced or only link to the subject's own website (which require ]). From what I can see, the claims being added are likely accurate; but without ], there are unresolved BLP concerns. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 03:57, 8 November 2015 (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)
:Looks okay to me. Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced BLP content like that and then protecting (or vice versa) is standard practice. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 8 November 2015 (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)
*Endorse revert and protection. The reverted edit was to the effect that a named person "came out as transgender" with <sup>citation needed</sup> included in the edit, and no source. That's an edit that obviously must be reverted. ] (]) 06:21, 8 November 2015 (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)
*Mostly agree, but why full protection rather than semi-protection? Looks like the edit warring was coming from IPs. ] (]) 10:58, 8 November 2015 (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.
== Unblock request for Felt friend ==


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)
{{archivetop|Consensus is against an indefinite block. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)}}


I'd appreciate opinions on whether on {{user|Felt friend}}'s own user page warrants an indefinite block without warning. The blocking admin, {{ping|Rklawton}} considers it to be an attack on transsexuals. ] (]) 07:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC) :I don't know what you're up to, but , I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks ] (]) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq| I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above}} That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --] (]) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:That user page history certainly seems to warrant an instruction to get their derriere out of ] territory fast, or else (whether for the bong or the "real girls"). As for blocking - can't tell, admin's call.-- ] 10:20, 8 November 2015 (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)
::I have commented on the page of the blocking admin. Granted that the post in question is wholly inappropriate as a Misplaced Pages entry, it is posted on the user's own page; had it been posted on the page of a user who had identified as transgender, or on the article page of a transgender subject, than the offense would have been unarguable. But posting on his own page means that the chance of any other editor seeing it is quite small, and also means that there was no overt intent to bring it to any other editor's attention. The comment was made without context, elaboration or follow-up. I would have taken the view that a warning, perhaps a final warning, or as an extreme reaction a short block would have been adequate.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 10:42, 8 November 2015 (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)
:::While it was an inappropriate comment to make, if it was just that one talk page edit, it doesn't constitute ''Extreme, unwarranted harassment'' and doesn't warrant an indefinite block (although a limited block would send a message that such comments are unacceptable). It would be a different matter if this editor was posting on other editors' talk pages but it was simply a stupid, juvenile comment on their own user page that was quickly reverted. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree with {{u|Liz}} and would personally support a 24-hour block (although I am not an admin) and a clear explanation as to why such comments are hurtful and unacceptable. --] (]: ]) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Both here and at ] there is consensus that the edit, while not good, was not worth an indefinite block, so I shall lift the block. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== Trolling at ] ==
== User talk:The bypass is open ==
{{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{resolved}}
*{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}}
Reporting vandal {{vandal|The bypass is open}}. Can someone please remove talkpage access of the trolling sock of {{u|Evlekis}} and revdel the personal attacks. Thank you. ] ] 07:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 08:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC) ] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you very much Max. All the best. ] ] 08:49, 8 November 2015 (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 ==
==User:Brewcrewer==
{{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I was editing ] and suddenly ] shows up, places 'Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement' template on the article's talk page and then leaves a warning on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR . First of all, the article is irrelevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, its talking about '''History''' of Jews '''in''' Jordan. And when I tried to tell him so on his talk page ] he gave a short irrelevant response and refused any discussion. --] (]) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}}
:You may need to reevaluate your position here. From the user talk page discussion, it appears at least one other editor agrees with him. Just sayin' ] (]) 08:08, 9 November 2015 (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 ]?
::That specific editor stalks my contribution list and keeps working against me. Not to mention his argument is baseless.--] (]) 11:25, 9 November 2015 (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)
{{archivetop|Now that the matter is taken care of, no apparent need to continue (NAC). ] ] 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)}}
:It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've restored it to the pre-socking version and {{U|Daniel Case}} has semi-protected the article.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. ] (]) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


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


An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].
{{userlinks|Telsa}} is Telsa Gwynne, wife of ]. Telsa is, alas, no longer with us, having died a couple of days ago (, , ). We had numerous mutual friends, I am confident this is accurate. ] (]) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry to hear the news.--]] 14:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::As am I, ], but isn't the procedure for an admin to add the deceased Wikipedian template and protect the user page? ] (]) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::These tasks have now been done by another admin. -- ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 21:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


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


Since July 2015, article subject ] has been using various editors to mold said article to his liking. I brought my concerns about this happening to ] back in early October where the report was essentially dismissed . Apparently, this is not the first time he has come to Misplaced Pages to work on the article and skew the content. He was brought to COIN back in 2008 , as well. Starting in June 2015, Ross started trying to control content in and out of the article as an IP by going to the article talk page and various noticeboards as well as editor talk pages: , , , , , , , , , , , . His own talk page his laden with editors spending time and energy discussing the article . His continuous complaints and requests at the article talk page has been quite a time-sink, as well: . On at least one occasion, he was dissatisfied with the consensus reached at the article talk page and the closing of the discussion (while continuing to exhibit ] behavior) and then went ] at ] . If look through the article talk page, you can see there are several editors in agreement that Ross' involvement is related to self-promotion and his continual requests and direction on how he would like the article to appear have taken up way too much time of editors attempting to answer his questions and assist him. Add to this his refusal to go with consensus and a persistence with ] and there has been an enormous amount of time given freely to this one individual. That said, he never seems pleased with how the article portrays his public image and I, personally, don't see an end in sight with his requests and complaints. There is a strong amount of ] going on, but ] and ] as well. He has not edited any other articles or done anything in Misplaced Pages other than what is connected to the article on him. That says to me he's not interested in building the encyclopedia, just building the ] article as a means of self-promotion. As we all know, Misplaced Pages is not a resume service or promotional website host. My purpose in coming here is not to see him blocked, however, I think at this point, at the very least, a topic ban in regard to editing or requesting edits at the article on him would be appropriate. Something has to get him to stop, in my opinion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
: I have been dealing with {{u|Rick Alan Ross}} for several months. He has spent the entire time trying to mold the article to fit his vision. I have tried to get him to address only maters of factual accuracy and violations of ]. A review of ] will show what a time sink this has become. {{u|Rick Alan Ross}} is here to guard and mold his BLP and for no other reason. He has been brought to COIN several times to address his behavior. He was required to identify his account to ArbCom but continued to edit his article as an IP until the page was semi-protected, forcing him to register and identify an account. His behavior indicates to me an intention to minimally comply with our policies and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants. <p> He is ] to build an encyclopedia and, in my opinion, should be topic banned from all maters relating to ] and cults/Scientology broadly construed or simply blocked since I seriously doubt he would edit anything else if banned from subjects that relate to himself. Pinging other editors involved with the saga {{ping|JzG|Jytdog|Govindaharihari|Francis Schonken}} {{ping|Collect| Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors| Elmmapleoakpine| Cwobeel|}} ]] 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


::To back up what Jbhunley noted above {{tq|"and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants"}}, I think it's worth noting that wearing down others to get the result he wants is precisely what being a ] (Ross' profession) is about. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


:::::Please lay off the pop psychology. ] (]) 23:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please lay off the personal attacks. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:30, 8 November 2015 (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)
:::Adding this sanction note from 2009 (): {{tq|"...instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses...Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)"}} Unless I'm reading the preceding wrong, it would seem RAR violated this 2009 sanction when he edited as an IP earlier this year. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Harassment and personal attacks ==
RAR has had some quite legitimate complaints in the past, and I fear that his attitude reflects that of some prior editors who seemed intent on accenting the negative about the living person. I note that since the BLP is ''directly connected'' with the famed Scientology arbitration case (it appears on the best interest of Scientology proponents to diss Mr. Ross by making sure we know he was a used car dealer, and that he lost a huge lawsuit where a lawyer associated possibly with the CoS was involved, etc.). Ignoring the original problems here would certainly let us bar Ross now - but when the Scientology issues are included, I think he is entitled to a little leeway - we can keep some of the SPS sourcing out without too much effort as he now knows better than to edit the BLP (or play at being an anonymous IP), and thus I am disinclined to join this fray now. ]. ] (]) 22:42, 8 November 2015 (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)
:::Related ongoing discussion here: ]. ] (]) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (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 ====
::::Already noted in the long list of links above ^^^. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 22:43, 8 November 2015 (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)


== Anonymous8206 ==
:I find none of the above has the traction purported. I find the subject of the biography being vilified for having the temerity to use the Talk page to steer the article in a direction that represents improvement. At present he wants a book which he has written mentioned in the article in such a way likely to allow a reader to avail themselves of it. The book is not necessarily self-published as it is published in more than one market. The subject has more than one time posed an interesting question. He wants to know why in what seems to be a parallel example—]—we find a similarly authored book highlighted in that article. Predictably enough we find ] as a counterargument. More substantial policies such as ] are being invoked; I don't think they are especially applicable. The subject of the biography obviously has an overriding message which motivates his life's work which one can assume is articulated in his latest book. As long as this book is squarely on the subject for which he is notable I think it is a far stretch to call highlighting his book an example of "undue weight". ] (]) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::My guess is that Ross likely keeps bringing up Hassan's article as a parallel because of the feud between the two of them that's been going on for a few years. The following link is to an archive of the Rick Ross website forum: . Not trying to dig up and post dirt on anyone, but it's somewhat obvious that the animosity between Ross and Hassan is feeding his desire to see equal treatment between the articles. And while we're on the topic of paralleling articles, let's not forget about ]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}}
:::How can you "guess" what motivates a person? ] (]) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: .
::::It seems to me that Misplaced Pages editors "guess" continually (especially in the drama boards such as this one) as to what someone's motivation is when their behavior has come under scrutiny at a noticeboard. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bus stop}} You have the 'book' issue completely wrong. He was complaining about this version, where his book is in its own 'Sources' section so it is still a 'reference' and wanted the text <em>simply moved down two lines</em> so it would be part of the 'Further reading' section. He seems to have wanted his book recommended as further reading in the article rather than 'merely' a source. That is purely ] - that was the point I lost all AGF with him. He felt strongly enough to start a BLPN discusion to force the issue when the talk page consensus was against him. I think that is what got all of the people over there a couple days ago doing clean up. <em>I do not know because he did not notify me, the other editors or post a notice on the talk page about the matter</em> He was asked repeatedly to do so when he brings issues up at noticeboards. ]] 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::If the book was used as a source for writing the article, it belongs in a "Source" or "Bibliography" section. "Further reading" should only be for additional resources that haven't as yet been used in writing the article. ] (]) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, we realize that. It's one of the things the article subject has been unhappy about (and part of what {{U|Jbhunley|Jbh}} is referring to above). Ross has refused to accept exactly what you pointed out, {{U|Beyond My Ken|BMK}}. That's part of the reason why - as Jbh states above - it's pretty obvious that Ross is more interested in promoting himself, his services, and his book(s) than building an encyclopedia. Hence, the reason why I have titled this discussion COI and NOTHERE. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Sorry if I made it sound as if my comment was contradicting something Jbhunley said, I was merely confirming what I believe to be the standard practice, which is in agreement with what you and Jbh are saying. ] (]) 02:12, 9 November 2015 (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)
::::::Nah, you didn't. I just wanted to make sure you got that we already had that covered. Part of the issue here is Ross' tendentious behavior that included going forum shopping at BLP/N after being told what policy was in regard to referencing/further reading. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 02:19, 9 November 2015 (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)
:::::::I think it's really out of line to try to tell the subject of a BLP that he is topic-banned from the talk page of that BLP. RAR is doing exactly what our COI policy says: use the talk page. If editors disagree with what he wants, then fine -- except that it's not at all inappropriate for him to go to BLPN. This is not forum-shopping -- again it's entirely in line with COI. If other editors find it frustrating, perhaps their efforts are best directed elsewhere. ] (]) 06:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::::::Going to BLPN is appropriate. This is a job for the BLP noticeboard. It's a common situation - subject of a biographical article doesn't like what's being said about them, tries to change their own article, and runs into Misplaced Pages's rules and bureaucracy. Then they end up at COIN, where anything that looks like self-promotion gets taken out and they get a bare-facts article, or AN/I, where they get blocked. ], though, is more oriented towards dealing with the problems of a bio article subject being unhappy with their bio. ] (]) 07:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'm annoyed out of my wits by {{u|Rick Alan Ross}} every now and again. That being said, I think that, for the time being, Mr. Ross is essential for improving the ] article, which still has many flaws. I know this noticeboard is not always very suitable to try and explain ''nuances'' – nonetheless:
*# {{ping|Rick Alan Ross}} you definitely should shape up. For instance, when the topic ''Cults Inside Out'' has been closed until "third party reliable sources with non-trivial reports about Ross' book can be given as reference" (]) it is not up to you to reopen that topic without providing such references (]) – Maybe a short block (one or a few days) can get this point accross to Mr. Ross. If you don't understand what "references" means in this context, please see ], ] and/or ]. For an explanation of "non-trivial" in this sentence, see ]. Maybe a day or two would suffise for you to get a grip on these Misplaced Pages rules, all other methods to draw your attention to this having apparently failed.
*# To my colleagues Misplaced Pages-editors who try, like me, to get the mainspace article on the subject in shape: I think closing talk page topics like I did at ] is maybe the way to go more often. When all has been said about a topic, close it. When the subject reopens (without apparently taking notice of the reasons why it was closed), close it again, like I'll probably do now for ]. That's my method of trying to avoid this becomes a time-sink for me.
*# On the content of the article: someone suggested Mr. Ross' notability ended after the Scott case. As far as I've been looking at reliable sources, this seems far from the case. The Institute he started after that (first under his own name, later renamed to Cult Education Institute) gets quite some coverage in reliable sources. For that reason I think Mr. Ross' presence essential to keep the article in balance. --] (]) 08:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual==
::I might agree with you on some of these points ''if'' RAR hadn't been here previously and hadn't been sanctioned previously and hadn't been told very recently that he needs to follow policy, accept consensus, and ]. I might agree with you if he were truly interested in building the encyclopedia rather than building his "online resume" and promoting his book(s) and business. The man is definitely a single purpose account, not here to build and encyclopedia, and frequently behaving in a tendentious manner. That's not "balance" of any kind. That's a general net negative as a waste of the community's time, patience, and energy. We have a plethora of articles that become GA and FA without the "assistance" of the article subject. In fact, I'm certain most of them have no input from the article subject whatsoever. To use that as a selling point in keeping him from being blocked or topic banned is just silly. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 10:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Winkelvi}}—at the ] you say How would it constitute undue weight to include the book ''"Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out"'' in the "Further Reading" section of the Rick Alan Ross biography? Aren't we trying to explicate the work of the subject of this biography? Doesn't he (presumably) explain his stance on the subject for which he is notable in the latest volume which he has authored? There is no ] issue involved at all. ] (]) 14:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Bus stop}} Please discuss that either at BLPN or on the article talk page. There is less than no reason to talk about the merits of inclusion in a <em>third</em> forum. Also, the back and forth between editors already familiar with the matter, about side issues, only serves to derail the ANI discussion. This is not a problem unique to this thread but rather a general problem at noticeboards. Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. ]] 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Jbhunley|Jbh}}, it seems to me that Bus stop has a long history of stirring shit and going on unrelated tangents at articles and talk pages related to Judaism or Jewish-related BLPs. , ,, , , , , . Based on him previously being banned and very narrowly avoiding a formal topic ban/sanction (less than a year ago) as well as his promise at the following AN/I report and the closing editor's comments, Bus stop shouldn't even be here commenting or at the article in question at all: {{tq|"Bus stop has agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention"}} . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Winkelvi}}—I have already , at the BLP/N, how your charge of "undue weight" applies to the placement of a book in a "Further Reading" section, but you did not respond. Do you understand the meaning of ]? It is a part of our policy on ]. Are you arguing that the placement of a book by the subject of the biography in the "Further Reading" section somehow compromises the ''neutrality'' of the article? ] (]) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
===Proposal===
{{u|Rick Alan Ross}} is topic banned from ] except to bring up violations of ] policy or to point out specific factual errors. The reason for this is the continued attempts to micro-manage his own biography and persistent ] behavior on ].
*'''Support''' at proposer. Misplaced Pages has a policy to help subjects of biographies manage violations of ] it does not and should not encourage the subject of a biography continuously tweak their own biography to their liking - whether by editing the article itself of through persistent talk page threads. It is hard enough to manage an ] article but it is nearly impossible when you have the subject constantly advocating their position. ]] 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', just because it's a BLP shouldn't cause reasonable ] provisions to stop applying. --] (]) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The subject of the biography in this instance has raised eminently valid concerns. ] (]) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' -- this is an absurd proposal, the editor has acted <u>entirely in line</u> with WP:COI. ] (]) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' Individual has ignored his previous sanction for staying away from his bio and cult related articles, tries to force issues his direction, and has not once demonstrated in several years' time that he's interested in building the encyclopedia, just micro-managing his BLP. So far, his presence has been a net-negative for the 'pedia and a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Let him prove he's here for more than his online image and self promotion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Pardon me, but can you please point to the sanction you say he has violated. ] (]) 20:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as being a solution in search of a problem. Ross should ''not'' edit the BLP proper, but I have no problem with his positions ''on the talk page''. ] (]) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – as formulated this seems a counterproductive measure. --] (]) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' {{u|Rick Alan Ross}} appears to be following COI guidelines. He discusses the edits he thinks should be made to the article. Not once has this account edited the article itself, only the talk page. He also uses BLPN to discuss the article. He does do a lot of talking but there is nothing wrong with that. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


As the title suggests, this includes:
===Proposal II===
{{u|Rick Alan Ross}} is blocked for three days. Reason: talk page disruption, and for refusal to inform themselves on Misplaced Pages core content policy.
* I've upped my initial proposal of one or two days to three days per , which was a completely inappropriate talk page post given the circumstances. --] (]) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Maybe it will help but I doubt it. He has too strong of an investment in the page and waiting three days or really any number of days to continue his ] will not change that. He is ] to build the encylcopedia he is here to ] himself and manage his biography. He will <em>always</em> be willing to put in more effort than anyone else at the page to get the version <em>he</em> wants. ]] 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' To me it looks like he is reading policy and trying to comply with it. If a block would be appropriate it should not be increased because he commented that people are trying to stop him from even commenting on the article about him, especially when people want to stop him from commenting on the article about him. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I, too, think it will do nothing to block him for three days. Unless, if the behavior continues, and he will be blocked for a longer period of time? But, really, what is blocking going to do except piss him off? He says he's not here for his BLP, but for Misplaced Pages. I say let him prove that by showing a vested interest in editing articles not related to him or cults. So far, he's been here just for his own interests in regard to his public online image and promoting his business and his books. Unless he's forced to have a reason to be here beyond that, blocking for a few days will accomplish nothing productive. Indeed, I predict it will cause more problems. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> £


*{{userlinks|SuvGh}}
Excuse me. Does this mean that I am now censored from commenting at my bio about the editing process? Given the history of my bio here, which has been edited by cult members and cult apologists, it seems that allowing me to comment is reasonable. I apologize for not knowing every detail of Misplaced Pages policy, but I am willing to be reasonable and work with people at Misplaced Pages. I don't think it is somehow self-promotion for me to be concerned about how some people may be improperly editing my bio. I don't think doing volunteer work for Misplaced Pages should be a requirement to comment about the editing at my bio Talk page. I have been working in the field of cultic studies since 1982 and building a database since 1996. My work is notable and has been reported about by the media around the world. I do interviews with one media outlet or another almost every month (e.g. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, CBC, Nippon, Asai, etc.). My book is notable and represents about three years work and is a synthesis of history and research with more than 1,200 footnotes, an 18-page bibliography and is 582 pages in length. It is now self-published in English and published in Chinese. I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness and testified in about 20 court proceedings, including 10 states and US Federal Court after a Daubert Hearing. I have been included in 18 documentaries, invited to and lectured at more than 30 colleges and universities and have done 500 cult interventions. Only about a dozen were involuntary interventions with adults. The Jason Scott case effectively marked the end of my involuntary intervention work more than 20 years ago. I have worked with the FBI several times and received an accommodation signed by Director Mueller in 2011. I have also worked with the Israeli Ministry of Social Welfare and attended international conferences in Canada, China and Thailand. I have had papers published in academic peer-reviewed journals and contributed to a number of published books. I say all this because I have worked hard to establish my reputation and of course I am concerned how some people think they can come in an anonymously manipulate the editing process at my Misplaced Pages bio page or the purpose of retaliation over the Cult Education Institute database, to malign me and/or impugn my integrity. There has been good editing done at my bio and bad editing. I would like to be engaged in a reasonable process to sort this out so that facts and reliable sources are used rather than biased claims from narrow questionable sources. Getting it right and accurate is good for Misplaced Pages, it's good policy, good for the public and yes good for me too. I am not used to your incredible labyrinth of rules and culture, but I am willing to learn. It seems though that some editors may at times use Misplaced Pages rules and culture to obscure issues, block meaningful dialog and obstruct needed editing.] (]) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (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.
:No, it doesn't mean this. Someone proposed it, and it's obvious that the proposal will not pass. ] (]) 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


*{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}}
== ] ==
::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 ].
{{Archive top|result=Jaazib indefinitely blocked for promotion. Also ], but I didn't use that as a rationale.--] (]) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)}}


Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi all. This seems like a fairly clear-cut case of self-promotion dating back to 2013 when {{u|Jaazib}} vandalized ] to insert his startup band's name. The user didn't edit until a couple of days ago when they decided to promote their band yet again. They created ], which seems like obvious self-promotion. If you look at the , you'll notice a few peculiar moves to User space, Misplaced Pages space, and the creation of the article in Template space. Can't tell if this was just n00b stuff or a deliberate attempt to populate the project with ill-conceived redirects.
:Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't ''currently'' editing it appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a ] attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. ] (]) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked both editors indefinitely. ] <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks ==
I PRODed the article, the user removed that. Fine. I nommed it for CSD as obviously promotional, but they even though I'd notified them of the CSD and '''bolded''' the warning not to remove the CSD .


{{user|2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64}} I saw an IP making an ] on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and ]. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. ] (]) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I of our notability requirements on their talk page.
:I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility and edit-warring ==
The user the {{tl|userspace draft}} template I applied to their Userspace draft, which suggests to me that they want some version of this article to exist without any indication that it's not up to snuff. I'll point out that . I have not researched this yet.
{{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:
In addition to the obvious promotion, my attention was first drawn to this user because of where they inapprorpriately change the gross value of an Indian film without updating the reference (which, in light of all these other problems, appears to be a deliberate introduction of factual errors.) There's also where they attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a directory for other presumably non-notable bands.


{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}
Assuming the best of faith, we have competence issues at best, ] in the middle (based on their responses and their peculiar edit ), and outright promotion/vandalism at best. I'm not sure what sanctions I'd recommend, but the history of disruptive editing should be considered, and I don't see what value their garage band has at Misplaced Pages. Thanks. ] (]) 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}
== Personal attack against ] ==
{{Archive top|result=Of course it's a personal attack. For that and more, the IP has been blocked for a month.--] (]) 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)}}


{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}
Hello. I was attacked with this on my talk page by ].] (]) 23:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:"Colossal moron", "twit" and "genius (in a sarcastic way)" aren't really personal attacks and sure as hell aren't worth reporting over!, Compared to some of the language here I think the IP was relatively nice, If he calls you other words which I won't mention then you might have a case.... –]<sup>]</sup> 23:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::I call this a very obvious personal attack. ] (]) 23:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}} This IP user just got off for disruptive editing and personal attacks. ]<sub>(])</sub> 23:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Had he called someone a colossal "c word" or a twat then yeah but the lanuage used was extremely low, I wasn't aware of the previous issues but I've gave a friendly tip anyway, I don't believe the language used violates NPA but hey I'm not an admin thank the lord {{p|grin}}. –]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}
== ] harassment ==
* Followed me from multiple pages reverting changes and leveling personal attacks.
* Followed me from ].
* To stalking me when I was trying to report ] for edit warring.
** Made multiple changes to the report section that had nothing to do with him/her.
* To jumping to reverting my changes on the talk page, multiple times.
* To writing on my talk page. ]
* I want him/her to leave me alone. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Dates:
::I won't waste time responding to the substance of these bizarre claims. The reporting editor is either a severely misguided newbie who has jumped into the encyclopedia in full ] mode, engaging in edit wars, getting blocked, and filing multiple nonsense administrative actions, all within their first few dozen edits — or an alternate account of somebody, or both. The repeated failure to sign comments or get basic wiki formatting suggests the former. The misuse of common Misplaced Pages process accusations like harassment, POV, edit war, personal attack, etc. suggests the latter. If an admin thinks some firm guidance can set this editor straight, please do, because if they don't adopt a collaborative approach or begin some constructive editing I do not see that they are long for the project. Thanks, - ] (]) 05:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
'''Comment'''(uninvolved): The NOM account seems to be someone's sockpuppet which is used when they want to do some controversial editing that may land them in hot water. He comes alive once a year, makes the controversial edits and then goes stale for the next time when such services are required. My two cents on the issue as a bystander. Regards ] (]) 05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:I'm sure a checkuser could figure it out, if they cared to. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


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.
* If this is really a sock puppet account wouldn't I use my other accounts to come to my defense? Instead multiple accounts out of the blue are using the same argument to attack me. ] (]) 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* Reality I am a software developer who grew up in the Dell-wood, Berkeley and Ferguson Missouri area. I lived on Winkler Dr, St Louis, MO. The most recent wiki editing has been on systems that aren't connected to the internet.
* All the edits are related to something I know about and went to look it up and some editor was high jacking the page.
* My nickname has been bongey because I had really large physical head when I was a kid and it went "bong" when I hit it against something. Everyone in my family calls me by it.
* Really wish[REDACTED] had a mod system, similar to slashdot.] (]) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
**You're a user with a POV-pushing agenda, and I'm surprised they haven't indef'd you yet. But they will eventually. And when they do, they should disable the underlying IP from editing. If you're not socking, no problem. If you are, it will effectively block your sockmaster also. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


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 ].
== Long term abuse by D4iNa4 continues. Indef should be reinstated. ==


26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
As this concerns a user who was unblocked from an indef ban of Socking I will ping the unblocking admin so he can take part in this discussion. So ] please be kind enough to take part in this discussion.
In May of last year the said user was indef banned due to being a Sock. The investigation is . The major concern/telltale signs were his POV edits and extreme inability to get the point. He subsequently appealed to the block but was rejected. However, a second appeal was on 2 July 2015. Almost at once he started removing Huge chunks of material from articles and anything that was against his POV came under attack. For example , have now become a norm for him. I regularly edit indo-pak essays but seeing that he was going haywire I stood back to give him enough ]. In the past three months he has done literally nothing on wiki except and . And I do mean literally. His are entirely made up of Huge removals of sourced information and on the ANI,DRN and other forums. As if going after articles was not enough he in his leasure time as well. contentiuos topics without even talking about it. And if someone disagrees, there is no "discussion", he just . In light of this evidence, and seeing that ever since he was unblocked he has been given enough ] but even then he has done nothing but cause nuisance, I'd like to recommend an indef as this is a clear case of ]. To be frank when the on your TP after your Sockpuppet indef ban is an edit war notice, you should know that there is something wrong. On a side note: The user may say that I have a personal vendetta against him, but a simple look at my contributions will show that I have not engaged him in the past three months and have been giving him rope, I don't think I have reverted any of his vandalisms. Regards ] (]) 05:20, 9 November 2015 (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."''
:] is one of the editors I had pegged as a sockpuppet (noted in my online sockpuppet notepad) before D4iNa4 was blocked as one. Not only did D4iNa4 sockpuppet, depending on what definition you use (for example, ), but D4iNa4 was clearly a problematic editor in other ways. ] (]) 05:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: ''"why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism"''. In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.
:Also see , where I told D4iNa4, "You appear to be removing things from articles based on a ] view." ] (]) 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*{{ec}}Anyway, what made you to revert him blindly ? He was added citations where "citation needed" tag was present, you reverted him without giving any edit summary which is a clear cut abuse of twinkle. Specially this India-Pakistan topic is under discreationary sanctions.--]]&nbsp; 05:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::@]. Yes, as I have made a report, I think rope time is over and I should remedy his vandalism from now onwards. Furthermore be kind enough to actually look at my edit. He added a POV essay as a source, I removed it and the (citation needed) tag was left in place. Experienced editors (and those who are not "pretending" to be naive 10 year olds) got the point as my revert has not been questioned. But since you are here please do two things. Firstly DO NOT bring content disputes into this investigation, you know that this is not the forum for that. Use the TP of the said article if you are mad about an edit I made, bringing this kind of dispute here is naive at best and hijacking at worst, I'll let you choose. Secondly, I would like to point out that ''''you'''' are engaging me in debate here, I did not comment on your edits etc. So if your feelings get hurt in the process of my answering your concerns I am not responsible. You have a long history of running to ANI everytime I hurt your feelings, where people tell you to grow a thick skin. Regards ] (]) 06:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::If you think that sources have some problem then you are suppose to explain it in your edit summary. You have hundreds of edits on sensitive topics where you reverted people abusing twinkle and not giving any edit summary. And I see this ANI more like ] attitude. I can see you have commented "keep", "keep" on all AfDs started by this editor and also reverted them blindly. This editor may not share your POV but that doesn't meant that you should report him unnecessarily. There is something called ]. This editor has been unblocked for after one year of block and hasn't evaded block for one year. I see nothing wrong in unblocking him. Rather you should leave your ] attitude and ].--]]&nbsp; 06:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::] has been going on for three frigging months my friend, time for you to wake up. Wait, did you even bother to read my report, I have clearly said that I have been Assuming good faith for three months? Secondly, if you do not like my editing and think that I am in violation of policy, make a section and provide diffs. Simple as that. Make a section titled boomerang and provide evidence like I did. As I said before I try to make sure that anything I do without an edit summary is something which ''''Experienced editors (and those who are not "pretending" to be naive 10 year olds)'''' will not question, and that is usually the case. To be frank, you are trying to hijack this discussion with thread style ]. So I will give you two options. Number one is to put your money where your mouth is and start a section detailing my bad behavior, provide diffs and I will counter. Just throwing around allegations is foolish and moronic as it wastes everybody's time. Number two is that make a section ''''Oppose'''' where you give arguments showing the "good things" this editor has done in the past months so that you can counter my ban proposal. Thread style discussion without proof wastes time. ] (]) 06:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


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 ].
*There is misconduct from D4iNa4 with regard to <s>blanking talk pages (which is recent) and</s> contentious redirects without discussion (the engaging in edit warring to force it in), though I do note that the AfD agrees with D4iNa4 but that's not the point. I don't think there's a strong case to make for indef blocking D4iNa4 given that the last block was for sockpuppetry and that hasn't occurred this time. Whether a short block (week maybe) is needed or a stern warning to discuss (ie consensus is important) would be best in this case. What is an appropriate response will be largely affected by D4iNa4's response. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Callanecc}} I think was to make archive of age old discussion. If you see talk page history and current talk page ] there is an archive made by him where he saved all discussion. I think bot was not archiving since many years. He has saved everything in ] and linked it to talk page.--]]&nbsp; 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I've struck that. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
This whole report misrepresents me. Nearly all of them are false statements on this report. Let me point them out quickly..


# OP calls edit as "regarded as vandalism", this editor who called these edits a vandalism was blocked for 48 hours for it. Currently spending 60 days block. Current version of article supports my edits, as well as strong consensus on talk page. 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."''
# edit is current version and per consensus on talk page, with accordance to ]. OP regards it as "deletion".
# was not talk page blanking. But manual archiving.
# , but this article is clearly going to be deleted. ], was there anyone else bringing it to talk page or AFD or adding more sources? It was '''me who stopped''' edit war by bringing them to AFD and I haven't edited these two articles since then. It was same day when I got to know that AFD can be created by any user.
# ? I made (-953) on this article during that time and current version supports my edits per strong consensus on talk page.


I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
OP is clearly wikihounding my edit history and made disruptive abuse of twinkle rollback like , which is violation of ]. Not to mention his "Keep" votes at , even after knowing that these articles are non-notable and going to be deleted. ] (]) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Confusing SPI case of {{u|Chander}} ==
{{Archive top|result=Puppet fails...back in the drawer.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)}}
I am very much shocked to see this result:


: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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chander/Archive
::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}}


== Swagsgod ==
Among all these confirmed socks, the only one i knew and trusted was {{ping|Babitaarora}}. Those who don't know Indian names. Chander is a male name and Babita is a female name while Arora is a Punjabi surname. Among all the blocked sockpuppets; Babitaarora is the only one who made two unblock requests (As can be seen in her talk page). She used to revert vandalism and report vandals to AIV and Administrators. I couldn't find any single edit from her contributions, where she was spamming, creating non notable articles. Her articles creation list shows a few articles created by her were deleted, but they were recreated by others: as ] and ] (page was moved).
{{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 don't know the details of the information available to check users. Is it possible that two users living in the same city, using the same ISP provider and having the same operating system, and unfortunately editing the same articles, will become collateral damage?
::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
::*{{tq| Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God}}
::*{{tq|Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests}}
::etc. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by {{ping|Fram}}). Let me know if I have missed anything. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). ] (]) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Gone. —] (]) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as {{tq|Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis}} was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? ] (]) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? ] (]) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source ==
'''I am making this post only for "Babitaarora" not for other socks.'''


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.
If this CU result is 100% true ( I am wrong and Babitaarora is indeed a sockpuppet ), '''then whom can i trust in Misplaced Pages'''??????? ] (]) 07:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*Yes, could someone conversant with SPI look into this, please? I see these two users created accounts within a few days of each other in 2014 and they tend to edit articles on Indian topics. However, they never seem to have both been editing an article at similar times or in a collusive manner. They have both been prominent at ] but so far as I can see on different reports. But I don't understand how SPIs are done: I can't even see how Babitaarora came to have their edits checked in the first place. Is it merely that they have both edited a lot of the same articles? ] (]) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:*{{takenote}} I've blocked the OP for block evasion. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== 142.190.62.131 ==
== Bad faith comments from ] ==


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)
There is a discussion taking place at ] about changes to next years cup. Everyone who posts there is entitled to their opinion. However, ] has taken it upon himself to assume bad faith and be personal towards me, and it is uncalled for:
: 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 ==
* → Rude and not civil.
* → Name calling, implying lack of intelligence in a sarcastic manner.
* → Accusing me of not producing good quality articles.
* → General rude tone and lack of respect.
* → Doesn't mention my name specifically, but this was posted after the ones above and is quite clearly directed at me. Implying that I am somehow making poor choices.
* → In response to my comment "Don't expect me to respect yours when you clearly don't respect mine, or me for that matter". Saying "what is there to respect?" is very personal and rude. It's implying that I am in some way sub-standard or less superior in some form and it's showing that Bloom6132 clearly doesn't have any respect for others or know how to show it, yet demands that respect be shown to him/her. This is the worse comment he/she has made and it should not be tolerated.


*Note 1: I placed a Level 1 Assuming bad faith tag on Bloom6132's user talk citing some of the comments above and his less than civil language , but he/she proceeded to remove it from the user talk with the edit summary "Bullshit".
*Note 2: Bloom6132 was blocked for 24 hours on 21 October last year for personal attacks or harassment and .
*Note 3: I did notify Bloom6132 of this discussion on his/her user talk,


Bloom6132 has unnecessarily adopted a rude, impolite, 'better than anyone else' stance injected with uncivil sarcasm intended to offend. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 11:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 11:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*Sigh, arguments over wikicup scoring. And not even all of it, just about not doubling up on GA>DYK noms. If you are getting that worked up over it I suggest taking a break. Everyone else - I would suggest take a look at the page to get Bloom's comments in context. As an example, the first one (your problem) was in response to Calvin taking offence at something that is not offensive. Calvin - if you badger someone when they are voting in a poll with an opposite stance, expect some pushback. That you find Bloom's reason offensive for not wanting to allow doubling up bonus points is really your problem, not his. While the rest of his comments are clearly sarcastic, some of them are pretty close. You do come off as sulking about bonus points. At some point people need to just walk away from a battle you are not going to win. (Also FYI, warnings can be removed from talkpages in almost all cases - it is taken as they have been seen and acknowledged.) ] (]) 12:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:*Thank you for looking at the entire discussion in context – I couldn't have said it better myself. Consensus within the WikiCup community has decided that GA→DYK noms should not be awarded points. Calvin continues to fail to get the point with his ] and ] attitude, despite the fact that he has been reminded several times by other editors why this rule is in place. He's been to ] but refuses to do so, and instead exports the discussion here in order to settle scores. I'm also pretty disturbed that he has stalked my pages in depth, for the so;le purpose of trying to dig up dirt, as well as thinking that he owns my talk page and believing that he can dictate what remains on there. And before Calvin gets so self-righteous about my getting blocked once, here's , where he has been blocked 4 times for reasons including ], ] "compounded by attempting to bully", and violating revert-rules with noted ] issues. In short, a lot of the ''me, me, me'' pattern of attitude that we're now seeing on the Cup scoring talkpage. —] (]) 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::* No one is sulking and no one is talking about battles (bizarre). You don't need to be personal and sarcastic to reply in conversation. You just don't. I haven't been blocked for over 3 and a half years, Bloom. Yours was 12 months ago and your appeal was declined 3 times because you couldn't convince admins that you deserved to be unblocked. There's no point listing a load of WP:'s linking to this, that and the other. You're the one who wasn't listening to me. You chose to ignore parts you didn't wish to discuss. Why are you going on about owning your talk page? I mean, seriously, WTF? Please explain what you mean here. I don't believe I have made any reverts or similar such things on your talk. You're entitled to remove things from you're own talk, I'm simply noting that you did. It's not like a tried to re-instate is it {{u|Only in death}}; you misinterptreted that (I don't appreciate you saying I'm "sulking" either. It's called having a discussion and promising ideas, of which people are meant to listen, not brush off. Several other editors are talking about bonus points too. Actually, I wasn't even talking about bonus points, so you got that wrong too). Bloom, you need to seriously think about how you reply to people. Employing sarcasm when you've never spoken to that person can be taken the wrong way, and it was. People who know who may know your style, but I don't, and it's not a tone you should take when talking to someone you've never spoken with. I've seen admins say that before and they are right. It's not what you've been saying, it's ''how'' you've been saying it. You're saying I "stalked" your page (please don't flatter yourself), haven't you just done the same to me? Don't complain about it if you're going to proceed to do it yourself. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 15:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


An IP range user ({{vandal|2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321}}) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including ]s). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information .
::::] has some kind of battleground mentality the way I see it, and I would suggest a quick block '''if''' they have been warned already. 16:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)]<sup>]</sup>
:::::Bloom was the subject of a ] for his battleground mentality around a year ago. Many were in support of a block, many more were in support of a block if he continued. He was not blocked, but then "semi-retired"; this is the first time I've seen him again since, to my memory, and he has come back with exactly the same kind of toxic, aggressive behaviour. In my opinion, that there is nothing to respect in Calvin or Calvin's opinion (and, to be clear and as I have said to him, I consider Calvin's position at least somewhat confused) is way over the line. Before seeing this thread, I left a on Bloom's talk page. I think my suggestion that, given his history, any further comments of this sort would result in a block was reasonable, but I will defer to any consensus developed on this thread. ] (]) 18:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


#
== 86.164.227.71 ==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
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)
IP ] is desperate to remove Cyprus from any classifications that place it in Western Asia as opposed to Europe, despite the fact that it appears in the ]. This has led to edit warring across a range of articles, including ], ], ] and ]. The Western Asia article having been semi-protected, the IP has now resorted to to their edit requests. ] (]) 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)‎
:Geographically it's in Asia, not European. But it's in the EU, so does that override geography? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::It doesn't override the fact that the UN classifies it as in Asia, which is what the IP was trying to at ]. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages though. My post here was about the user's conduct, including maliciously changing ]'s edit request response. ] (]) 18:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::: I was shocked to see him actually falsify another user's response, let alone an admin. This indicates a serious breach of personal integrity. The IP user has made a short apology on the talk page, which is somewhat ameliorating, but this demands more explanation. I humbly suggest that he be sternly warned that further such behavior will result in some sort of ban. ] (]) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::There is clearly a debate to be had about how best to describe Cyprus's geographical location, but the IP does not seem particularly interested in such a debate (with the exception of the discussion at ]) and has continued to edit war despite clear warnings at ] and in edit summaries. ] (]) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


== Starship9000 and IPs == == Abusive user ==
{{atop|1=Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Moved from the ]. Courtesy link: {{user|Opolito}}, filed by {{user|Shaggydan}}, moved by ] (]) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? ] (]) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Back in 2013, I was involved with an unfortunately necessary effort to get Starship9000 blocked across Wikimedia properties. Recently, several IP addresses that appear related to each other have made vandalizing edits to both Starship9000's talk page and my own. I suspect the perpetrator may be Starship9000 himself. In any case, I'd like an extra set of eyes on this. Here are the involved IPs, some of whom have been recently blocked:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
:Yeah, I've been seeing this stuff. Can we protect the page, at least? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Good idea, I just filed an RPP with a link back to this thread. <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


:This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk page semi-protected indefinitely. The IPs are too scattered for a rangeblock. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:@]. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. ] (]|]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Shaggydan}} - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at , I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. ]&thinsp;] 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Shaggydan}} Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? ] (]) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with ''actual'' personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.}} You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? ] (]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
:I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many ]s are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
:Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
:He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
:I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
:Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
:29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
:On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
:These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
:I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

Latest revision as of 17:55, 22 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
    • 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
    • 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
    • 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
    • 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
    • 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
    • 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
    • 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
    Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.
    I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
    I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.
    Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
    A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".
    I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Support Ban.
    Sr. Blud (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with Gaming the system. Sr. Blud (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
    I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! Sr. Blud (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno. Sr. Blud (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Me (DragonofBatley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)

    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)

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

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

    Diffs:

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

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

    It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can see here the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    "All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
    -WP:Bot policy
    WP:Citing sources is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you quote the part of WP:RS which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. this diff? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about your use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BOTACC specifically says The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot. EF 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
    As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right?? Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unsupervised bot and script use has damaged thousands of articles. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December).... XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    We're into the second batch of ReferenceExpander edits to check and clean up. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. Both should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here neither. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BOTP is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
    • Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
      • WP:BOTACC says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
      • BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of WP:ROLE. Now, ROLE does have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple managers", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're developed and maintained by a team of people (rather than ones that can be used by multiple people).
      • Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to 50,000 pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the only people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they were, in fact, approved implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
      • WP:BOTCOMM seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
      • WP:BOTREQUIRE says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
      • WP:BOTCONFIG provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
    • Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
      • WP:BOTMULTIOP says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved despite the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
    Whoop whoop pull up 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
    "Both should take reponsibility"
    -Phil Bridger at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
    Policy is very clear, don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or, as the same page quoted above puts it: Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation bot has not been approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at User:Citation bot § Bot approval. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    ☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    " make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots" Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. CNC (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future

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

    Response and apology from PEPSI697

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

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

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

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

    Non-neutral paid editor

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

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

    WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley

    I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
    With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
    I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
    P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
    All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
    The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.
    Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
    Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
    If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
    • With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
    • AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
    • I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
    • Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.
    I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
    Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
    Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.
    In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.
    The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
    For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.
      opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
      alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
      Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
      BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
      the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
      AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
      Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?

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

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

    Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile

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

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

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

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

    IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    (involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before). To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Femke, I've modified the Frank Biermann article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.
    I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the Earth System Governance Project article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the solar radiation modification article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page here. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a topic ban or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like Solar radiation management. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.
    At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a edit request to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 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)

    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)

    Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC

    Everyone has cooled down and agreed to stop with the mishegas. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ArionStar's disruptions

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

    Now, concerning ArionStar:

    See:

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

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

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

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

    1. Sockpuppetry 1
    2. Sockpuppetry 2.

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

    Regarding me being “mad about my failed nom”, that is casting serious WP:ASPERSIONS. I engaged because I saw what looked like uncivil behavior, not because one of my nominations failed. EF 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your subjective opinion. I don't accuse you of misconduct here, just optionally indicate this trigger in context, perhaps, as a guess, and in parentheses. -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Basile Morin: I recommend striking your comment about EF5. There is no indication that this AN/I report is retaliatory. In all 3 of the FPC links above, you started it, not ArionStar, who rightfully dismissed your comments in those discussions. ArionStar's conduct at Commons is not a valid reason to oppose an FPC and your continued posting of the same thing at every FPC has been disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's my rational vote. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Basile Morin, I strongly suggest striking your comment about EF5, as it's casting aspersions which is not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestion. Last time I felt "forced" to cross out my comment, it later turned out that my first impression was the right one. I am fortunate to have sharp skills in psychology, nevertheless I admit that everyone is fallible, including me, and that it is possible that I am wrong on this one. I hope not to offend anyone and that this parenthetical introduction does not distort the (essential) substance. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:WIKILAWYERING about "last time" doesn't help your case when you are casting aspersions. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your links. I will try to read these two "essays" in peace and quiet, as well as this "information page". I already wrote a friendly message below. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Basile Morin, it's hard for me to see that friendly exchange on your talk page as an "attack", it looks to me like they were trying to make peace. But if you don't want them posting on your User talk page just make that request. As for what happens on the Commons, you'll have to contact admins on that project because we have no jurisdiction on there. If you suspect sockpuppetry on the English Misplaced Pages, do not make comments in unrelated discussions, just file a case at WP:SPI. But we don't want battleground behavior from the Commons coming on to this project, that could end poorly for a number of editors. Liz 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Attacks, attacks, he attacked"… I'll keep my silence because I try… (It's sad to see when someone "loses the line" after a "ceasefire request")
    P.S.: " annoyance perhaps caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination"… kkkkkkk (laughs in Brazilian Portuguese). ArionStar (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    ArionStar, I think it would benefit all editors, including you, to let this feuding die and go out of your way not to provoke each other. Focus on the work. I would be happy to not see a future complaint on ANI about any of you guys but that takes effort on everyone's part to let the past go. Liz 00:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree Thanks. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    On reflection Thank you. I would like to apologize to user EF5 if I may have made one or more errors of judgment regarding them. I do not know this user very well, and having noticed that they often change their name, use multiple accounts, and edit other users' personal pages, I may have indeed become too defensive. Since they are apparently very young in their photos, I may have made some wrong assumptions of behavior. It may also be the fatigue generated by the long repetitive puppet hunts on the other friend project. So all the better if this person (EF5) is reliable and well-intentioned. I don't blame them for anything, and I'm rather looking forward to getting back to my usual activities.

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

    I have absolutely no problem with ArionStar contributing constructively to the development of the encyclopedia (if that is really his intention). However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this wise warning from another user is in my humble opinion far from being "vandalism" as the other imagines. This is perhaps a most important point. The last thing I claim is the need for ArionStar to immediately and permanently stop using unproductive puppets. Neither elsewhere nor here. See WP:BADSOCK "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts.

    I noticed that after self-imposing a "wikibreak" they reverted another user to my own talk page, thus adding to the annoying noise. I would therefore be grateful if ArionStar would never again try to get in touch through this channel. I need peace and concentration.

    Finally, I am happy, personally, to make an effort of discretion. I have accepted the criticisms that have been addressed to me, and sincerely consider them constructive. Thank you to each and every one of you. I wish you all fruitful research and rich contributions on Misplaced Pages. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    In addition, I'll ignore any report about me coming from you here on Misplaced Pages. ArionStar (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza

    Religião, Política e Futebol and ZanderAlbatraz1145 have both been edit warring at Aubrey Plaza over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.

    Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. Liz 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, This complaint is not about the content directly. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • There have been numerous edits to the Aubrey Plaza article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
    • Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family.
      • The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP 94.63.205.236. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
      • @Sundayclose: Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
      • During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, 74.12.250.57, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, 2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
      • The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
      • On 10 January, @Religião, Política e Futebol: made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
      • Another IP, 2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
      • On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
      • On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
      • Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
      • On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
      • Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
      • I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
    • In regards to the mention of Baena's suicide, this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
      • @DiaMali: did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
      • Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
      • The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when @Ibeaa: removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
      • On 7 January, IP 2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196 adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
      • The next user to re-add the info was @ZanderAlbatraz1145:, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
      • The IP 2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8 removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
      • @Sundayclose: reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
      • Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
      • Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing committed suicide for the first time in this edit, which IP 50.71.82.63 fixed. Diff:
      • Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information five times each, no edit reasons in sight.
        • Zander: (above 1), 2, 3, 4, 5
        • Ibeaa: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
      • I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
      • Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
      • On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
      • Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
      • Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
      • Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is accurate and properly sourced. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the Jeff Baena article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
      • Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
      • Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. Archive.
        • I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
      • After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
      • I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
      • Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem vital enough to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:
    This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at WP:ANEW or a request for page protection at WP:RFP would be more suitable than ANI. Liz 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to acknowledge the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Death threats by 2.98.176.93

    BLOCKED Blocked and TPA revoked, nothing further. (non-admin closure) Heart 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    2.98.176.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Left a death threat here - diff
    Adakiko (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. Liz 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:1036:B7B1:4292:C997 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you use Twinkle, you can select 'block with talk page access revoked' and it'll select the proper template. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't believe that. I use Twinkle all day long and I never saw that option. There are always things to learn here. Liz 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly, The Bushranger, thank you very much. I have the hardest time locating the right template regarding admin work. Liz 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    No problem! I've had to dig to find the right template a few times myself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Templates are a convenience but not at all necessary. It does not take long to type "Your talk page access has been revoked. See WP:UTRS for your options." Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated copyvios by Manannan67

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

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

    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)

    Okvishal and years of self promotion

    Okvishal indef'd. Article has been deleted (at its most recent title attempt, Vishal Raaj) and salt applied to all three variations that have been used. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    @Okvishal: has been an editor for 14 years. They have 138 edits but only 11 of them are non-deleted ones and those non deleted ones are also for self promotion or promotion of their feature film. A look at their talkpage shows the sheer scale of self promotional editing they have done over the course of their wikicareer. Right after joining they created an autobiography which was speedy deleted, they recreated the article under a different title and it was deleted (speedy) as well. Over the course of 14 years, they have recreated their article and those of related topics several times all leading to waste of community time through AfDs as Vishal Raj,Dream Lock,Nikkesha, and most recently at Vishal Raaj. It is clear that they are not (and never were) here to build an encyclopaedia. Consider blocking them and WP:SALTing Vishal Raj,Vishal Raaj,Raj Vishal etc. Nxcrypto Message 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've blocked them as it's clear they're only here to promote their non-notable self. Canterbury Tail talk 22:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 - multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or coprimise is a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Rissoan view on the matter. Unas964 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hamzajanah posting vanity hoaxes and general NOTHERE behaviour

    WP:NOTHERE user is no longer here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I'm really struggling with this new user. They have posted Draft:Hamza JanaH and Draft:Hamza janaH both autobiographies and both contained multiple hoaxes. They are continually using Misplaced Pages as a WP:SOAPBOX and violating WP:NOTWEBHOST too. They are constantly boasting about their wealth, see this diff for example. They claim to be a close associate of William J. Burns (diplomat), Christopher A. Wray and Bob Ferguson (politician). They are also misusing their own talk page. I have not seen one constructive edit and their filter log is one of the worst I've seen and also warns us of "persistent sockpuppetry". This is bordering on WP:NOTHERE already. Their ability to navigate Misplaced Pages suggests that they might have had previous accounts and might even be an LTA vandal but I can't think who it is. Spiderone 17:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    That filter is notoriously poor for detecting socks. I believe it was created with one sockmaster in mind, and yet based on how it functions (I'm not good at filters), comes up with many (mostly?) false positives.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't really matter whether they have been socking or not. They are posting hoax content to Misplaced Pages, so should be blocked anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    In one of their screeds they’ve embedded some serious BLP violations. For the sum of everything, with no hope of useful contributions, blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that that's a fair outcome. Thanks all. Spiderone 18:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Edward Myer

    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)

    Please revoke TPA from JEIT BRANDS

     Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Talk page abuse, still spamming after block, please revoke TPA -Lemonaka 18:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Continual ECP-Violating Posts in WP:RUSUKR area by User_talk:Valentinianus_I

    Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Valentinianus I is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to WP:RUSUKR topics.

    • As background, this editor was notified repeatedly by User:Mellk in August , and clarified . Melik again notified Valentinianus a month later in response to more edits that were not exempt , .
    • Valentinianus was blocked for a few weeks in October until User:Rosguill unblocked them after giving benefit of the doubt. I'm only bringing this up because Rosguill, during the unblock reference notified Valentinianus that they would "like you to confirm that you've read and understand Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War#Remedies by identifying edits that you have made in violation of it, and how you will observe it going forward."
    • User:Isabelle Belato notified Valentinianus on 1/18 that they were making inappropriate edits in violation of RUSUKR and was violating WP:BATTLEGROUND as well . Valentinianus replied that asking for a rename and calling for a subsequent rename vote were edit requests .

    After that reply to Isabelle Belato (so that there is no question Valentinianus is aware of the latest warning), Valentinianus made five additional edits to Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. None were remotely along the line of constructive edit requests, the problematic ones being to argue that a source is a "Ukrainian shill site" , a project complaint about the infobox , and WP:ASPERSIONS about the bad faith of the other editors on the talk page .

    While in isolation, no individual edit is egregious, this editor has been warned several times about the limits of RUSUKR, and adding WP:BATTLEGROUNDS, WP:AGF , and WP:ASPERSIONS violations in this area to the number of WP:ECP violations, I believe an indefinite topic ban from WP:RUSUKR topics, broadly construed, is appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I've just blocked them for a week instead. If they're ignoring the ECR restrictions, they'll just ignore a topic ban; that's because the reason they're ignoring the ECR restrictions is either WP:CIR or the fact that they don't care, and either would apply to a topic ban as well. Perhaps they'll get the message after this block, or perhaps they won't at which point we can look at further sanctions (which, let's face it, is likely to be an indef). Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Just noting that the prior block before this was a sockpuppetry block, which I lifted as I found their explanation of how they came to make their edits plausible. The further editing since the unblock as outlined in the block actioned by Black Kite seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    There's a few comments here that seem muldly disconnected from exactly what happened previous to this, but probably not to the point whee it changes the math on this latest block. Beeblebrox 02:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It appears I was unclear. I was quoting Rosguill's reminder about RUSUKR in the conversation about a possible unblock . My point wasn't about the block itself, but that the editor received an additional warning about their edits in that area. I missed including that specific diff. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:35, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: Indefinite block

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

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

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

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

    diff

    diff

    diff

    diff

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

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

    More specifically this line:

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

    diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    and you responded

    Which is labeling the party as it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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)

    Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

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

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

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

    Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    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

    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:

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

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

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

    User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article

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

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

    Editor repeatedly reverting edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Trolling at Talk:Denali

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

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

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

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

    Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Banned Blocked IP

    Banned Blocked IP Sock

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

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

    Harassment and personal attacks

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

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

    Proposal: commute block to topic ban

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

    Anonymous8206

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As the title suggests, this includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Incivility and edit-warring

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

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

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

    Users involved:

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

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

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

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

    Dates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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

    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)

    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. Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic